Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

1. Something can't be an objective fact to one person and not another. You apparently don't understand the concept of objectivity.

2. The government doesn't have to establish a law stating when life begins. Science does that. It makes zero sense to say that the government has to make laws defining everything. Has it made a law saying that it isn't ok to kill asian females, for example, or does that kinda just go without saying?

3. I agree that laws should be followed. No law has ever been passed saying it's ok to kill people if they haven't exited the vagina yet. A court fabricated a constitutional "right" to kill those people, and that court's decision should be overturned. I don't need to lobby for a "law" that defines when life begins. That isn't even in question. There is a meaningless semantics debate about whether certain lives qualify as a "person" . . . and that only "persons" are protected from harm . . . but any semi-honest human being knows that's a ridiculous distinction made solely so people can justify killing other humans they don't want to have to care for.

---

Actually it's you that doesn't undertand the concept of objective fact. You try to assert your opinion that a fetus is equal to life, which is fine, it's your opinion, but there's been a debate for decades whether a fetus is a life and a human being. One side says it's a live human, the other side says it's not a human just a bunch of cells. The fact there's been a debate and it hasn't be settled, by definition makes it a subjective fact, not an objective fact.

Once again, what's up with all the races? Asians this time? And once again, I'll point out that you're trying use humans that have been born to try and make a point that has zero to do with the argument.

You're trying to argue that I'm pro-abortion. I'm arguing what power should the gov't have over someone's body. There's a big damn difference. Unless you can't distinguish between big government and freedom, which apparently you cannot.

Look guy, if I was president, I would defund planned parenthood, speak against abortion and raise awareness that adoption is an option. I would never, however, tell a woman that my government has control over her body, unless there was a law stating that life begins at conception... and wouldn't you know it... that's a law I would push for. Geesh, take a Xanax.

---

Your'e the one who's worked up. And, no, there has not been a debate about whether an unborn baby is "life". That is an undisputed scientific fact. The "debate" has been about whether or not that life should be granted "personhood." The argument being that only "persons" are worthy of having their lives protected. Most kindergartners could tell you that's hogwash, but yet we have millions of idiots in western civilization who hand-wave and pretend its a valid argument because they want to be able to kill other human beings which they created but don't want to care for.

You keep coming back to government having "power" over someone's body, but that is a red herring. Here, the government would be telling you that you don't have the power to destroy someone else's body. You aren't giving a **** about the innocent child's body, only the mom who wishes she hadn't created it.

Just comes down to whether or not he pressured kids to stay for the prayer or not. You can't try to force kids to have a religious experience, obviously, they have 1a rights. And obviously, you can pray for yourself and anyone who wants to stay for it, because you have 1a rights.

Porteroso said:

---

Just comes down to whether or not he pressured kids to stay for the prayer or not. You can't try to force kids to have a religious experience, obviously, they have 1a rights. And obviously, you can pray for yourself and anyone who wants to stay for it, because you have 1a rights.

---

Agreed
I think this will be the Supremes' analysis

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

---

So where does human life begin? At conception? At a heart beat? After X number of weeks? There are people that would argue that people who say a fetus is human life is an scientific positiont - hence the raging debate for the last several decades.

Did you know that about (or more than) 2/3 of women in this country get abortions when prenatal testing indicates the child will have down syndrome? - perhaps there should a clear legal definition that life begins at conception. It would be easier to make such abortions illegal.

---

Fetus is a Latin word meaning offspring or the bearing of the young. In other words, it's just a substitute word for infant. It's like using the Spanish word casa for a home, and saying since it is a casa it therefore isn't a home. Now your talking about Latin words? Okay, whatever

So when does a fetus become a fetus? I'm not arguing when a fetus become a fetus

At conception a being with its own independent genetic structure is created. If this is not a human life, then what is it? I didn't say it wasn't a human life

If you say it is not a life, I'll stop you right there. I never said anything of the sort. I said there is a raging debate. Some believe it's a life, some don't believe it's a life. For God's sake man, if I point out that the sky is blue and I tell you that some people say it's not, that not mean I don't think the sky is blue.

then the burden is on you to say what it is. No it's not

We come out of nothing, which means a human life is created at some point. If that creation does not occur at conception, then when is human life created? I have NOT argued when or where I think life begins. I have merely said that the government should have a clear definition of when life begins.

Calling an unborn infant a collection of cells is a meaningless argument. I did not say that. I said that people on the other side of the argument say it's a bunch of cells. It's true, I've heard them say it - more than once.

You and I are also a collection of cells, and decisions were made in the previous century about which clumps of cells had value and which clumps of cells didn't. Collections of cells that were Jewish didn't make the cut in one spectacular case. Okay

Saying it is not an infant because it depends on nutrients from the mother's body is not an argument, unless you are willing to place a born baby on the same level as an unborn infant as not being human, since his survival also depends on nutrients from the mother's body. I never said it's not an infant. I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth.

I am very aware that there has been a mass killing off of Down's syndrome babies. I used to have a few friends with Down's syndrome when I was I was a kid and a teenager. Used to walk home from school daily with one in my 5th grade class. My children have not had a single kid with Down's syndrome as a friend. They're almost all gone. Then perhaps the government should establish a clear definition that life begins at conception.

---

Holy crap on a cracker. You're so off the rails you don't know if you should scratch your watch or wind your ass.

First you need to stop poutting words in my mouth and second you need reread my posts with your emotions in check.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

1. Something can't be an objective fact to one person and not another. You apparently don't understand the concept of objectivity.

2. The government doesn't have to establish a law stating when life begins. Science does that. It makes zero sense to say that the government has to make laws defining everything. Has it made a law saying that it isn't ok to kill asian females, for example, or does that kinda just go without saying?

3. I agree that laws should be followed. No law has ever been passed saying it's ok to kill people if they haven't exited the vagina yet. A court fabricated a constitutional "right" to kill those people, and that court's decision should be overturned. I don't need to lobby for a "law" that defines when life begins. That isn't even in question. There is a meaningless semantics debate about whether certain lives qualify as a "person" . . . and that only "persons" are protected from harm . . . but any semi-honest human being knows that's a ridiculous distinction made solely so people can justify killing other humans they don't want to have to care for.

---

Actually it's you that doesn't undertand the concept of objective fact. You try to assert your opinion that a fetus is equal to life, which is fine, it's your opinion, but there's been a debate for decades whether a fetus is a life and a human being. One side says it's a live human, the other side says it's not a human just a bunch of cells. The fact there's been a debate and it hasn't be settled, by definition makes it a subjective fact, not an objective fact.

Once again, what's up with all the races? Asians this time? And once again, I'll point out that you're trying use humans that have been born to try and make a point that has zero to do with the argument.

You're trying to argue that I'm pro-abortion. I'm arguing what power should the gov't have over someone's body. There's a big damn difference. Unless you can't distinguish between big government and freedom, which apparently you cannot.

Look guy, if I was president, I would defund planned parenthood, speak against abortion and raise awareness that adoption is an option. I would never, however, tell a woman that my government has control over her body, unless there was a law stating that life begins at conception... and wouldn't you know it... that's a law I would push for. Geesh, take a Xanax.

---

Your'e the one who's worked up. Not really, but I'll admit your last post, putting words in my mouth, did piss me off a little.

And, no, there has not been a debate about whether an unborn baby is "life". There's been a debate for decades or have you missed the part where the left has continually said over and over that a fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells

That is an undisputed scientific fact. To you it is, to the people on the other side not so much.

The "debate" has been about whether or not that life should be granted "personhood." I have never heard the left use the term "personhood". Now let me make clear, I'm not saying that they've never said... I am saying I've never heard it.

The argument being that only "persons" are worthy of having their lives protected. Most kindergartners could tell you that's hogwash, but yet we have millions of idiots in western civilization who hand-wave and pretend its a valid argument because they want to be able to kill other human beings which they created but don't want to care for. Yes there are people that want abortion on demand

You keep coming back to government having "power" over someone's body, but that is a red herring. Here, the government would be telling you that you don't have the power to destroy someone else's body. The government needs to operate within their lane. To do so, then they should have a clear legal definition of when life begins if they want to tell a woman she doesn't have a choice

You aren't giving a **** about the innocent child's body, only the mom who wishes she hadn't created it. Aaaaaand we're done here. You can kindly **** off. You are now on my ignore list.

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

Rawhide said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

---

So where does human life begin? At conception? At a heart beat? After X number of weeks? There are people that would argue that people who say a fetus is human life is an scientific positiont - hence the raging debate for the last several decades.

Did you know that about (or more than) 2/3 of women in this country get abortions when prenatal testing indicates the child will have down syndrome? - perhaps there should a clear legal definition that life begins at conception. It would be easier to make such abortions illegal.

---

Fetus is a Latin word meaning offspring or the bearing of the young. In other words, it's just a substitute word for infant. It's like using the Spanish word casa for a home, and saying since it is a casa it therefore isn't a home. Now your talking about Latin words? Okay, whatever

So when does a fetus become a fetus? I'm not arguing when a fetus become a fetus

At conception a being with its own independent genetic structure is created. If this is not a human life, then what is it? I didn't say it wasn't a human life

If you say it is not a life, I'll stop you right there. I never said anything of the sort. I said there is a raging debate. Some believe it's a life, some don't believe it's a life. For God's sake man, if I point out that the sky is blue and I tell you that some people say it's not, that not mean I don't think the sky is blue.

then the burden is on you to say what it is. No it's not

We come out of nothing, which means a human life is created at some point. If that creation does not occur at conception, then when is human life created? I have NOT argued when or where I think life begins. I have merely said that the government should have a clear definition of when life begins.

Calling an unborn infant a collection of cells is a meaningless argument. I did not say that. I said that people on the other side of the argument say it's a bunch of cells. It's true, I've heard them say it - more than once.

You and I are also a collection of cells, and decisions were made in the previous century about which clumps of cells had value and which clumps of cells didn't. Collections of cells that were Jewish didn't make the cut in one spectacular case. Okay

Saying it is not an infant because it depends on nutrients from the mother's body is not an argument, unless you are willing to place a born baby on the same level as an unborn infant as not being human, since his survival also depends on nutrients from the mother's body. I never said it's not an infant. I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth.

I am very aware that there has been a mass killing off of Down's syndrome babies. I used to have a few friends with Down's syndrome when I was I was a kid and a teenager. Used to walk home from school daily with one in my 5th grade class. My children have not had a single kid with Down's syndrome as a friend. They're almost all gone. Then perhaps the government should establish a clear definition that life begins at conception.

---

Holy crap on a cracker. You're so off the rails you don't know if you should scratch your watch or wind your ass.

First you need to stop poutting words in my mouth and second you need reread my posts with your emotions in check.

---

lol wut?! Calm down. The "you" is understood as the general reader. Not sure why you are reading some kind of attack in this. These are very common positions if you are going to argue for the morality and/or the legality of abortion. If you don't think any of them are tenable, then there isn't much room to argue for abortion still being an open question morally.

Stop taking things so personally; I have no animus towards you. If I did, I guarantee you my posts would be very different in tone.

Louis Pasteur is credited with conclusively disproving the theory of spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck flask experiment. He subsequently proposed that "life only comes from life."

Follow the science.

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

1. Something can't be an objective fact to one person and not another. You apparently don't understand the concept of objectivity.

2. The government doesn't have to establish a law stating when life begins. Science does that. It makes zero sense to say that the government has to make laws defining everything. Has it made a law saying that it isn't ok to kill asian females, for example, or does that kinda just go without saying?

3. I agree that laws should be followed. No law has ever been passed saying it's ok to kill people if they haven't exited the vagina yet. A court fabricated a constitutional "right" to kill those people, and that court's decision should be overturned. I don't need to lobby for a "law" that defines when life begins. That isn't even in question. There is a meaningless semantics debate about whether certain lives qualify as a "person" . . . and that only "persons" are protected from harm . . . but any semi-honest human being knows that's a ridiculous distinction made solely so people can justify killing other humans they don't want to have to care for.

---

Actually it's you that doesn't undertand the concept of objective fact. You try to assert your opinion that a fetus is equal to life, which is fine, it's your opinion, but there's been a debate for decades whether a fetus is a life and a human being. One side says it's a live human, the other side says it's not a human just a bunch of cells. The fact there's been a debate and it hasn't be settled, by definition makes it a subjective fact, not an objective fact.

Once again, what's up with all the races? Asians this time? And once again, I'll point out that you're trying use humans that have been born to try and make a point that has zero to do with the argument.

You're trying to argue that I'm pro-abortion. I'm arguing what power should the gov't have over someone's body. There's a big damn difference. Unless you can't distinguish between big government and freedom, which apparently you cannot.

Look guy, if I was president, I would defund planned parenthood, speak against abortion and raise awareness that adoption is an option. I would never, however, tell a woman that my government has control over her body, unless there was a law stating that life begins at conception... and wouldn't you know it... that's a law I would push for. Geesh, take a Xanax.

---

Your'e the one who's worked up. Not really, but I'll admit your last post, putting words in my mouth, did piss me off a little.

And, no, there has not been a debate about whether an unborn baby is "life". There's been a debate for decades or have you missed the part where the left has continually said over and over that a fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells

That is an undisputed scientific fact. To you it is, to the people on the other side not so much.

The "debate" has been about whether or not that life should be granted "personhood." I have never heard the left use the term "personhood". Now let me make clear, I'm not saying that they've never said... I am saying I've never heard it.

The argument being that only "persons" are worthy of having their lives protected. Most kindergartners could tell you that's hogwash, but yet we have millions of idiots in western civilization who hand-wave and pretend its a valid argument because they want to be able to kill other human beings which they created but don't want to care for. Yes there are people that want abortion on demand

You keep coming back to government having "power" over someone's body, but that is a red herring. Here, the government would be telling you that you don't have the power to destroy someone else's body. The government needs to operate within their lane. To do so, then they should have a clear legal definition of when life begins if they want to tell a woman she doesn't have a choice

You aren't giving a **** about the innocent child's body, only the mom who wishes she hadn't created it. Aaaaaand we're done here. You can kindly **** off. You are now on my ignore list.

---

---

Lol, I didn't put words in your mouth, you were quoting another poster above. And I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about there being any real question about whether a fetus is life. Everyone agrees it is life. There is disagreement about whether that life deserves protection from being killed. And I'm sorry you're triggered by me pointing out that you're only caring about one of the body's in the scenario. I alway laugh at the "ignore" response, but have at it.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Your comment at the end is the broader, more concerning issue of our politics and government.

Congress and state legislatures (less so but still) during the past 50 years increasingly are failing to execute their basic function - passing laws - and surrendering that responsibility to the executive bureaucracy or to the courts. Moral questions aside, if a state wants to promote abortion the legislature should simple pass a law that makes it legal. While it should constitutionally be a state issue, the Congress could do the same.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Your comment at the end is the broader, more concerning issue of our politics and government.

Congress and state legislatures (less so but still) during the past 50 years increasingly are failing to execute their basic function - passing laws - and surrendering that responsibility to the executive bureaucracy or to the courts. Moral questions aside, if a state wants to promote abortion the legislature should simple pass a law that makes it legal. While it should constitutionally be a state issue, the Congress could do the same.

---

Worst thing Roe did was remove a contentious issue from democratic process. Had SCOTUS ruled otherwise, we'd have most blue states with abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, and worse. And we'd also have most red states with very restrictive abortion laws, including a few with outright bans on the practice. People who felt strongly either way could move. People who could afford to travel to get their abortion would do so. And people who couldn't afford to travel to get an abortion would have cafeteria options available to them, including 501c3 non-profits running transportation networks to get the poor the services they desired.

Best of all, the laws everywhere could change with fluctuating public opinion and abortion would be a state and local issue, rather than a gnawing national catfight.

Same error was made on Obergefeld, btw......

Courts have lost much respect for Congress, in no small part due to the high percentage of progressive activists on the bench.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Thanks for posting

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

Ok, Grima.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

"Holy crap on a cracker"

I find myself wondering where you came up with that theosophical construct.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Holy crap on a cracker"

I find myself wondering where you came up with that theosophical construct.

---

I think Penny said that in a BBT episode.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract]. The fact that anyone thinks that 5 unelected officials can alter the clear terms within that written social compact simply on the basis of their beliefs [of what should/shouldn't be contained in the writing] is beyond problematic.

Do you regularly allow people to unilaterally rewrite contracts you have signed?

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract]. The fact that anyone thinks that 5 unelected officials can alter the clear terms within that written social compact simply on the basis of their beliefs [of what should/shouldn't be contained in the writing] is beyond problematic.

Do you regularly allow people to unilaterally rewrite contracts you have signed?

---

The "contract" is an explanation of how the rights we have are going to be protected. It is not a delineation of the rights themselves. There is much overlap, but they are distinct concepts.

When the contract says all citizens have "equal protection " and are entitled to "due process" that covers a lot of ground.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Holy crap on a cracker"

I find myself wondering where you came up with that theosophical construct.

---

I think Penny said that in a BBT episode.

---

Oh, OK. I will stop looking through Deuteronomy for the phrase, then.

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract]. The fact that anyone thinks that 5 unelected officials can alter the clear terms within that written social compact simply on the basis of their beliefs [of what should/shouldn't be contained in the writing] is beyond problematic.

Do you regularly allow people to unilaterally rewrite contracts you have signed?

---

The "contract" is an explanation of how the rights we have are going to be protected. It is not a delineation of the rights themselves. There is much overlap, but they are distinct concepts.

When the contract says all citizens have "equal protection " and are entitled to "due process" that covers a lot of ground.

---

You are arguing a point not made. I stated that the 1st Amendment is the list of fundamental rights [as Constitutionally defined].

And the argument that due process & equal protection create rights is flawed. Neither deal with "rights", they deal with preservation/protection of life, liberty & property. Read the 5th & 14th Amendments:




Liberty has been repeatedly defined as the ability to exercise fundamental rights [hence, in effect a verb and not a noun] . The 1st amendment, et seq. list the fundamental rights. The "running amok" with the 5th Amendment, 14th Amendment and ICC [in the name of "doing good" but at the expense of horrid legal precedent] has been the subject of lengthy debate over the past half century.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

"Judge-made law". Now there's a frightening prospect.

Pretty sure 'our society', prior to the American Revolution, rested on Judeo-Christian principles encoded in a law created by elected representatives. If I recall correctly, part of the Americans' complaint was that they lacked that representation in Parliament.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

grievances against the monarchy was primarily what Jefferson had in mind when writing the declaration. It is the first known document of a people asserting their will to self govern.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

Are you off of your meds?

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

grievances against the monarchy was primarily what Jefferson had in mind when writing the declaration. It is the first known document of a people asserting their will to self govern.

---

Is it really?

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

grievances against the monarchy was primarily what Jefferson had in mind when writing the declaration. It is the first known document of a people asserting their will to self govern.

---

Is it really?

---

From the document:

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

That was not in reference to a judge.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

Are you off of your meds?

---

Did we have any rights prior to the Constitution? If so, did they disappear when the Constitution took effect? What do you make of the 9th Amendment?

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

Are you off of your meds?

---

Did we have any rights prior to the Constitution? If so, did they disappear when the Constitution took effect? What do you make of the 9th Amendment?

---

You seem intent to argue.

No one has Constitutionally protected rights when the Constitution didn't exist. The prior societal form of organization had its own forms of rights and redresses. We started over via revolution.

The 9th Amendment recognizes that state specific fundamental rights exist and clarifies that a national constitution [creating federal fundamental rights] does not wipe them away. The concept of state specific fundamental rights was addressed by SCOTUS in the Slaughter-House & Hurtado opinions [but it also recognizes that if adopted by all 50 states state fundamental rights become federal (Obergefell opinion)].

Not going to play fetch the bone with you. You are arguing the same nonsense that Cardozo & Stevens argued for decades and EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF SCOTUS, liberal or conservative SCOTUS, has roundly rejected. They are correct, it violates separation of powers. It violates Article V.

Run along little loony lefty.

---

I'm not sure how seriously to take this. Are you trolling, or do you actually think Hurtado and Slaughterhouse are the last word on fundamental rights?

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

Are you off of your meds?

---

Did we have any rights prior to the Constitution? If so, did they disappear when the Constitution took effect? What do you make of the 9th Amendment?

---

You seem intent to argue.

No one has Constitutionally protected rights when the Constitution didn't exist. The prior societal form of organization had its own forms of rights and redresses. We started over via revolution.

The 9th Amendment recognizes that state specific fundamental rights exist and clarifies that a national constitution [creating federal fundamental rights] does not wipe them away. The concept of state specific fundamental rights was addressed by SCOTUS in the Slaughter-House & Hurtado opinions [but it also recognizes that if adopted by all 50 states state fundamental rights become federal (Obergefell opinion)].

Not going to play fetch the bone with you. You are arguing the same nonsense that Cardozo & Stevens argued for decades and EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF SCOTUS, liberal or conservative SCOTUS, has roundly rejected. They are correct, it violates separation of powers. It violates Article V.

Run along little loony lefty.

---

No one said that we had constitutionally protected rights before the constitution. We had, you know, lets call them, I don't know, searching for the right words...maybe, hey try this: "unalienable rights." Yeah, that has a ring to it,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Jefferson and his compatriots seemed to think that men possessed rights and that governments exist to protect those rights. The rights exist in nature or from God, take your pick. They don't reside in the states or federal government. The Constitution tells us how the government is to protect those rights. Or, if you view us as 50 separate governments in a..., lets call it ...a "Confederacy," then how the "governments" are to protect those rights.

Based on the 14th amendment, which is a part of the Constitution no matter how much the right wants to deny it, the wannabe Confederate states must protect the "unalienable rights" that caused us to revolt in the first place. Defining what those rights are is no easy task. The right to control one's own body when another potential human life is involved, the right to marry someone of the same sex, the right to go to the bathroom one pleases, etc., etc. One can legitimately argue those rights are "unalienable" or not. But if a right is fundamental, the 14th amendment gives it to all citizens.