Since it was in quotation marks, I took your sentence to be just that — a quote. Maybe you could be a little more explicit next time that what you are writing shouldn’t be attributed to an actual person.
Come on! I didn’t “attack” Ms Swetnick. I pointed out issues with her assertions as to how she acted (or didn’t act) based on observations of alleged sexual abuse or illegal acts and allegedly being the victim of those acts. Is it believable that she and others would allegedly be drugged, raped, and “trained” and no one reported that to the police or other authorities? Would someone subjected to such abuse voluntarily continue to attend the parties as she apparently did? Her actions based on her assertions are incongruent calling those assertions validity into question based on any fair observation.
What I’m “happy about” is that we finally have a Supreme Court majority that applies rigor in their Constitutional analysis with attention to original intent, analysis of our traditions and norms, and who apply appropriate judicial restraint.
As far as I can tell, Russia restricts abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy except in the case of rape where it is extended to 22 weeks and in the case of medical necessity when it can be performed at any time during pregnancy. They also have some “ideas” which don’t fly well here like mandatory waiting periods, abortions only provided by licensed individuals at appropriate facilities (hospitals), plus doctors can “opt out” of performing them without penalty.
I don’t know what Russia’s controlling document is or how it reads. I’m pretty sure whatever it is it’s unlike our Constitution that reserves for the states (or the people) that which it doesn’t empower the federal government.
The long-term impact of this Supreme Court correction will not be known for several years and election cycles. The people are free to lobby for as liberal abortion policies as they wish and to campaign for, financially support, and elect politicians who will enact legislation codifying them. We are constantly told by our media overlords that there’s OVERWHELMING support for abortion. Time will tell whether that’s accurate or not. If so, you may see individual state laws that are much more “abortion friendly” then how things are now.
Isn’t that an example of the “Democracy” that we’re lectured we should respect so much?
Do I support the Second Amendment? Yes. I’m not sure what you mean by “guns everywhere”. I don’t think it should be legislated that “everyone” must own a gun. I think automatic weapons should continue to be highly restricted and continue to require the additional in-depth investigation and licensing. I think enacting bans on made-up designations of firearms like “assault weapon” again based on the fact some politicians think they look “scary” would be ridiculous as they have been proven to be ineffective at reducing gun crimes. I think “gun-free zones” are specifically targeted by people with mental illness bent on doing damage with a firearm and should be limited (or eliminated).
I suppose because the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment prevents the complete banning of firearms that could be warped into the Supreme Court “allowing for the killing of Americans”. But, even that wouldn’t prevent firearm killings because the police and the military would still have firearms that could end up in the hands of criminals.
Can you provide an example of what “SCOTUS read into the Bloody 2nd things that aren’t there” that allowed for the killing of Americans?
Do you really believe that considering “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the same as “discovering” a right to abortion that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution including the 14th Amendment?
