Supreme Court deals blow to two states' attempts to cut Planned Parenthood funding

originally posted by: shooterbrody

it is the original legislation
interesting how all those other amendments got added some even got taken away, that is how legislation works

It's not legislation, which is passed by Congress and signed by the President. This was ratified by the States. Again, you fail to understand how our government functions.

it is sorely needed, our judicial was not intended to legislate

It's not, it's ruling on the Constitutionality of legislation. Again, failure to understand our government.

interesting you bring this up
I happen to back the side of a womans choice
That has nothing to do with a court ruling vs a law from congress
All congress has to do is pass a law, interesting in this day and age they do not have the stones or backing to do so

Congress doesn't need to pass a law, the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution, ratified by the States, makes this protected.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's not legislation, which is passed by Congress

You should check this out.
www.archives.gov...

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.

Seems congress is actually the vehicle used most.

Again, you fail to understand how our government functions.

perhaps you were mistaken?

It's not, it's ruling on the Constitutionality of legislation. Again, failure to understand our government.

lacking a law to protect it, the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench, and will continue to every time a state passes a law that may involve roe v wade(which is not a law).
www.npr.org...

If High Court Reverses Roe v. Wade, 22 States Likely To Ban Abortion

This would not be the case every time a state law is passed or a new scotus appointee is needed.
Thus the need for actual law to protect a womans right to choose.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
It's not legislation, which is passed by Congress

Dude, you brought up the Bill of Rights, that was passed as I described. Your inability to understands basics civics is troubling.

perhaps you were mistaken?

Uh, no, you are and it's not good.

lacking a law to protect it, the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench, and will continue to every time a state passes a law that may involve roe v wade(which is not a law).

That's not legislating, that's upholding or striking down the CONSTITUTIONALITY of that legislation.

This would not be the case every time a state law is passed or a new scotus appointee is needed.
Thus the need for actual law to protect a womans right to choose.

Really? Say they pass your superfluous law does that prevent a more conservative Congress and President from passing legislation that revokes that law? We both already know the answer.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: headorheart
Link

In February, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that states have broad – but not unlimited – authority to regulate Medicaid healthcare providers. "States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit," the court said in its majority opinion, "especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides."

Three of the court's conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch- said the court should have taken up the issue. John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh did not agree.

I'm quite happy with this. One, I agree that a state shouldn't be able to terminate Medicaid health care for any reason they see fit. Especially since these laws seem to have been enacted after the videos surfaced of Planned Parenthood selling fetus tissue, which turned out later to be wildly disproven. Two, the now conservative leaning Supreme Court did not make this about abortion simply because Planned Parenthood was involved. Specially Kavanaugh. There was a lot of concern he was being nominated for the sole purpose of reversing Roe v. Wade (which I don't even understand how that is a question in 2018). That is why Trump could not simply "pick a different conservative" when the sexual accusations came out. It seems to me if he was, he would vote to stir up trouble for Planned Parenthood no matter what the cause.

Either way, nice to see some bi-partisanship voting these days.

So you like tax payer funded murder of innocence. Got it.

It's ridiculous that the right cares so mush for unborn babies but cares very little for them after they are born.

It doesn't matter if the woman who is pregnant is a drug addict who lives on the street, by God she is going to have that baby. But when she doesn't have enough money to feed that child, well that's her problem. When her boyfriend beats the crap out of that kid, well that's her fault too. When that kid then grows into an angry teenager and robs and murders someone the right will just shrug.

If you are going to claim the sanctimony of life as your reason to outlaw abortion, you damn well better keep that same logic going to when they are born. That means more social welfare to help pay for these poor kids born into horrible situations that they themselves have zero control over. These kids have no ability to change the behaviour of their parents and they are completely innocent.

Bottom line is if you are going to force people to have children you better be ready to pay more in taxes to help take care of those children when they are born. Otherwise you are a hypocrite of the highest order by claiming to care about the value of life but only before they are born.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Dude, you brought up the Bill of Rights, that was passed as I described.

no
you asked for the law that granted miranda rights
i provided the bill of rights
abortion "rights" did not exist prior to roe v wade
that is exactly legislating from the bench
that is also why there are additional state laws to protect roe v wade thus the need for a federal law not unlike the civil rights act or americans with disabilities act
funny how skin color or birth defects can be protected by legislation but not a womans right to choose

originally posted by: shooterbrody

no
you asked for the law that granted miranda rights
i provided the bill of rights

You said it was 'legislated', it wasn't, it was part of the RATIFICATION of the United States Constitution and is the sole reason the Supreme Court took up the case. Legislation is created by Congress and signed by the President.

abortion "rights" did not exist prior to roe v wade
that is exactly legislating from the bench

Yes, they did, and if you disagree you should take it up with the Supreme Court which ruled any legislation banning abortion outright violated the Constitution.

that is also why there are additional state laws to protect roe v wade...

Those laws are superfluous as the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter.

I see you conveniently ignored my comment about another Congress and President passing laws to nullify your useless law.


For the terminally confused:

Constitution vs Legislation

Constitution and Legislation are two terms that are often confused when it comes to their definitions and connotations. The word ‘constitution’ is used in the sense of ‘the act or method of constituting the composition of something. The Oxford Dictionaries refers it to a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a State or any other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

On the other hand the word ‘legislation’ is used in the sense of ‘the process of making laws’. It refers to ‘laws collectively’. This is the main difference between the two words ‘constitution’ and ‘legislation’. Difference Between Constitution and Legislation

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, they did, and if you disagree you should take it up with the Supreme Court which ruled any legislation banning abortion outright violated the Constitution.

Tell that to the people in the 30 states abortion was banned in and the 16 it was only allowed in special circumstances.
"Abortion rights" magically appeared in those states with the roe v wade ruling.
That is exactly legislating from the bench.

I see you conveniently ignored my comment about another Congress and President passing laws to nullify your useless law.

I didn't ignore anything, you are correct congress WRITES laws and the potus can sign them into law. NOT the SCOTUS no matter how much you would like them to.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Tell that to the people in the 30 states abortion was banned...

I don't have to, the Supreme Court ruled they were violating the Constitution.

I didn't ignore anything, you are correct congress WRITES laws and the potus can sign them into law. NOT the SCOTUS no matter how much you would like them to.

I'm not asking the Supreme Court to anything except their job, which they are, you on the other hand want superfluous laws for 'feels'. You can have your extraneous law, until of course some jackwads come along and pass one that overrules yours and then you'll go whining to the Supreme Court to make a ruling on its Constitutionality

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't have to, the Supreme Court ruled they were violating the Constitution.

and when rgb kicks off and trump replaces here the scotus can rule (legislate) differently
a womens rights law would stop that crap

originally posted by: shooterbrody

and when rgb kicks off and trump replaces here the scotus can rule (legislate) differently
a womens rights law would stop that crap

They can't do anything independently, this is a basic civics fail, Congress (or a State) has to pass a law for them to rule on. Supreme Court rulings are not legislation, they are interpretations of the Constitution. Educate yourself.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody

and when rgb kicks off and trump replaces here the scotus can rule (legislate) differently
a womens rights law would stop that crap

They can't do anything independently, this is a basic civics fail, Congress (or a State) has to pass a law for them to rule on. Supreme Court rulings are not legislation, they are interpretations of the Constitution. Educate yourself.

like there wouldn't suddenly be cases to take up when rbg kicks off
what reality do you exist in?

why are you so against a law to protect womens choice?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
why are you so against a law to protect womens choice?

You not reading? I already said it's superfluous and a law is not a guarantee. Only another Supreme Court ruling is as close to one as you will get in our system. But this is them taking and you obviously have a an astounding grasp of basic civics so it doesn't compute.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Didn't stop the fear mongering over roe v wade now did it.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Didn't stop the fear mongering over roe v wade now did it.

Not my concern.

a reply to: shooterbrody

that's like saying that we need laws to protect our right to own a handgun, or to travel freely, ect. laws don't really exist to protect rights to stuff, but rather they usually are passed to restrict actions that the gov't finds harms society. then, if they over extend their power to regulate and the court finds that they have infringed on the rights of the people, they can step in and shoot down the law.
if a right needs a law to preserve it, then it isn't really a right that is granted by the constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why the need for a civil rights act or ada then ?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

that's like saying that we need laws to protect our right to own a handgun, or to travel freely, ect. laws don't really exist to protect rights to stuff, but rather they usually are passed to restrict actions that the gov't finds harms society. then, if they over extend their power to regulate and the court finds that they have infringed on the rights of the people, they can step in and shoot down the law.
if a right needs a law to preserve it, then it isn't really a right that is granted by the constitution.

Those are written in the bil of rights
A womans right to choose is not

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: headorheart
Link

In February, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that states have broad – but not unlimited – authority to regulate Medicaid healthcare providers. "States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit," the court said in its majority opinion, "especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides."

Three of the court's conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch- said the court should have taken up the issue. John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh did not agree.

I'm quite happy with this. One, I agree that a state shouldn't be able to terminate Medicaid health care for any reason they see fit. Especially since these laws seem to have been enacted after the videos surfaced of Planned Parenthood selling fetus tissue, which turned out later to be wildly disproven. Two, the now conservative leaning Supreme Court did not make this about abortion simply because Planned Parenthood was involved. Specially Kavanaugh. There was a lot of concern he was being nominated for the sole purpose of reversing Roe v. Wade (which I don't even understand how that is a question in 2018). That is why Trump could not simply "pick a different conservative" when the sexual accusations came out. It seems to me if he was, he would vote to stir up trouble for Planned Parenthood no matter what the cause.

Either way, nice to see some bi-partisanship voting these days.

So you like tax payer funded murder of innocence. Got it.

It's ridiculous that the right cares so mush for unborn babies but cares very little for them after they are born.

It doesn't matter if the woman who is pregnant is a drug addict who lives on the street, by God she is going to have that baby. But when she doesn't have enough money to feed that child, well that's her problem. When her boyfriend beats the crap out of that kid, well that's her fault too. When that kid then grows into an angry teenager and robs and murders someone the right will just shrug.

If you are going to claim the sanctimony of life as your reason to outlaw abortion, you damn well better keep that same logic going to when they are born. That means more social welfare to help pay for these poor kids born into horrible situations that they themselves have zero control over. These kids have no ability to change the behavior of their parents and they are completely innocent.

Bottom line is if you are going to force people to have children you better be ready to pay more in taxes to help take care of those children when they are born. Otherwise you are a hypocrite of the highest order by claiming to care about the value of life but only before they are born.

Very nice post.

's Cons

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why the need for a civil rights act or ada then ?

You need me to do your research now? Goddamn, no wonder why you don't know what you're discussing.

It had to do with Congress exercising it's Constitutional mandate to regulate interstate commerce.

a reply to: SR1TX

So i take it your all for raising and taking care of these children?