And YOU know what I want?

I wanted to discuss a court case in a court sub forum of a political forum. I gues partisanship can't stay out of everything. All you people are so tainted by the hue of your party that you can view nothing objectively. Everything is about the PARTY PARTY, congrats for many of you here it is the only party you get to come to. Enjoy it, but as soon as the demoncrap and rethugshit comes you leave you individual mind at the door and trade it for a mob mentality

I take it this overruling the Florida State Supreme Court is based on the Equal Protection clause and the right to privacy?

I'm glad you support Roe v Wade.

Have you read Breyer's book Active Liberty?

Asinine. Why do people not understand the intent or realize the proper place of such things. Under this very amendment, congress and the judiciary have gone and done some pretty absurd things.

If you only knew the absurd things the Supreme Court has done by using the Constitution for whatever purpose it needs at the time.

Lastly, please show me. Beyond a doubt where Abortions are protected under the Constitution. Last time I responded as such I did not get a response from you. I will state again and again that Abortion is subject to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Same as Marriage or anything else not written in the Constitution. I also fail to see how Abortion is a privacy issue. Which was the argument back in the day.

Besides, if a Judge can just as easily overturn a previous interpretation what the fuck makes you think it is a Constitutional Right in the first place? That is the whole point and anger about Legislating Judges. They do not memorize and uphold the law. They rewrite the law to suit there partisan agendas.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

supercilious |ˌsoōpərˈsilēəs|
adjective
behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others : a supercilious lady's maid.
DERIVATIVES
superciliously adverb
superciliousness noun
ORIGIN early 16th cent.: from Latin superciliosus ‘haughty,’ from supercilium ‘eyebrow.’

Thesaurus
supercilious
adjective
a supercilious young clerk arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, superior, patronizing, imperious, proud, snobbish, snobby, smug, scornful, sneering; informal hoity-toity, high and mighty, uppity, snooty, stuck-up, snotty, snot-nosed, jumped up, too big for one's britches.

describes some of the denizens of AWE too .....

__________________
Definition of political correctness:
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I'm politically incorrect and damn well satisfied to be so. Gummer

The Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." was used to invalidate the restrictions on condoms in Griswold (1965) and abortion in Roe in the 9th District; the Supreme Court supported the 9th District Court ruling using a different line of reasoning.

I find it interesting that Bork argues that the 9th amendment is an inkblot that obscures all meaning and thus can't be used for anything.

My question to you is where does the Constitution grant any government the right to restrict the individual rights of any person who is not having any adverse impact on another person because of the solitary activity of the person or the mutual consent of the persons engaged.

Of course, in the case of condoms and abortion, we are also in the First amendment territory because those who want to restrict are doing so in order to impose their religious views on others who don't share them. The problem is that legislators don't justify their religious laws in religious terms, but invent some state right to impose their views.

The enlightenment and the development of the natural laws and natural rights and inalienable rights ran counter to the established order, so the process of kicking the law out of meddling with individual rights has been a long slow process, resisted by conservatives who want to retain their power over others. And we have some conservatives like Cheney who are determined to pull back into the executive the powers that were wrested from the hands of the king long ago.

Judges have no power other than reason and words. What better example is needed than the rulings of the Pakistani Supreme Court which was resulted in judges thrown out and arrested and imprisoned without charges. Courts can impose nothing. That is for the people.