President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Why won’t President Trump call it Radical Christian Terrorism?

 

Shocker that RTExpress thinks taking away a right that doesn't affect him in any way sounds like a good deal.

 

Nice red, pustule-encrusted zit on his forehead, this morning.
Looks like a tusk is finally growing where it ought to be.
And this guy still thinks he presents well.

 

What’s the federal authority to intervene and save the fetus? Where I. The constitution does the Congress have authority to pass laws to ban or regulate abortion?
They don’t license doctors and murder is not and has never been a federal offense without a federal concern

 

Of more importance is that this is a concurring opinion and he not only couldn’t get the rest of the justices in the majority to agree with that language, he got none of the other conservative justices in the majority to adopt that language. (Gorsuch and Ginsburg both dissented in separate opinions. Gorsuch did not use Thomas’s reasoning as support for his dissent). The majority opinion echoed language previously used in addressing the importance of and standards to be used in deviating from stare decisis.

Calling into question the broader personal protections the Court has found in the 14th A as Thomas would do would not just take away the underpinnings of Roe (assuming an abortion case would be the vehicle), but would do so to cases going back to the 1920s. These broad rights have been relied upon in cases striking down laws restricting marriages (interracial and gay) and outlawing access to contraceptives (for married couples and single people), as well as the rights of parents to make decisions about what and where their children are taught.

 

To be clear I didn’t say it was a good deal or bad deal. It’s a deal Democrats would never take. Abortion is just too important to the identity of the party and all it says it believes to think differently.

 

@Amy, any knowledge as to why Breyer dissented? Was there something procedural in there he didn't like?

 

Breyer was in the majority. Ginsburg was the liberal justice who dissented. Although not stated, I’m going with she did it for the same reasons I would have wanted to. The facts, obviously, would be the same under both prosecutions. In this case, the definitions of the crimes under federal and state law requires exactly the same elements. It just feels so wrong that this isn’t double jeopardy.

 

Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about the Virginia gerrymandering case.

 

The voting split is interesting in that one - GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.

Just goes to show there are limits to what one should assume about the justices and their labels as conservative or liberal.