Not going to rehash it here, there is an old thread around here somewhere on it. Suffice it to say I disagree with you on it’s legality.
Abortion is about family size, and sex, which is about money: who has it, and who is less subject to paternslism the more they earn.
To be more precise, and with regard to “abortion”, the fight is about whether we nominate a Supreme Court Justice who will adhere to our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and reserve to the States all those powers not delegated to our federal government . . . abortion being within that category. Or, nominating a Justice who will ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, suggesting such action is necessary to promote fairness, reasonableness and socialist justice . . .
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
That doesn’t stop people from saying “Yes, but…”
1 Like
The tenth amendment died in 1860 with states conceding from the union. Even with your SCJ and a 6-3 majority, you won’t be able to revive the lost cause.
in other words, abortion.
Abortion, right to keep and bear arms, keeping our federal government out of local public schools, etc., . . . just as I previously stated:
“… the fight is about whether we nominate a Supreme Court Justice who will adhere to our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and reserve to the States all those powers not delegated to our federal government . . . abortion being within that category. Or, nominating a Justice who will ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, suggesting such action is necessary to promote fairness, reasonableness and socialist justice . . .”
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
oops
You may, again, be misapplying.
1 Like
No it isn’t.
but mostly abortion.
The right to keep and bear arms isn’t really in danger anymore… its more an issue of which types of arms you can keep and bear.
So glad I was able to give you a chuckle, buddy! 
I don’t think you understand that ruling.
And abortion is really about trying to control women’s bodies.
I don’t want to control their body, just protect the life they created by not exercising SELF control…
1 Like
Which is in their body.
And by that standard, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership does want to disarm American citizens. So, you are wrong!
Perhaps because you have not been paying attention;
Also see Harris asserting we, the people, have no need for “assault weapons”, which means the very kind of contemporary firearm a foot solder would have to protect against a despotic government.
JWK
Our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.
But once it’s been forced outside of that body, don’t come asking me to help support social policies that will assist in keeping the baby alive.
Bootstraps, baby!
2 Likes
20 posts were merged into an existing topic: Kentucky to quarantine anyone attending easter services
Always has been.
1 Like
