"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS should reconsider contraception"

No, the people, the states usurp far more rights than the feds


What is religion.

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from the point of view. durkhiem

 

Since 60% of americans want RvW seems democracy took another one on the chin

 

They sort of forgot to develop the 4th part of government, us!

 

Nonsense! You alluded to the current decision the SC made regarding Roe.

Ok, exactly what did they decide other than letting the States decide for themselves?

 

Then perhaps they should stop voting for the politicians making the laws they don't like.

 

That the people have no federal protection re: abortion and where ever this ends up.

 

Anyone truly working for the 'people' gets assassinated in this land of the free, cant have that, history proves the point

 

Unless those rights that change happen to be gun rights, correct?

 

You don't have to tell what I meant, I know what I meant. I meant what I said: This is not about abortion.

This is not about abortion.

Sober up!

 

It takes a special kind of **** to conflate Justice Thomas legal opinion with religion. I noticed the OP title is in quotes but it doesn't say who it's quoting. Why do you think that is?

 

So, you prefer rule by the Feds instead of that of the individual States. People choose where to live based on the standards of the community. What you're advocating for is to take away the rights of the people to assemble with who they prefer.

 

Enjoy your day. You've wasted enough of mine.

 

Have we entered the Twighlight Zone?

 

This is one place I adjust my typical stance. I hate paying for other peoples handouts, but I'd gladly support "free" taxpayer funded contraception because keeping certain people from reproducing is a huge long term investment that's well worth it.

 

Why would you think Thomas wants to criminalize contraception?

 

Lets see theres kennedy, lincoln, and the bullets missed jackson, there they are political leaders, MLK, do gooders are elminated.

 

Hence, SC Justice opined,
"Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

 

Going after? Did you read Thomas's reasoning? Did you know that he laid out a framework as to how those might be considered as "“privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

 

Well, 5 guys and 1 woman who believes women are subservient to men....

So basically 6 guys....

 

A more truthful statement would have been: "Justice Thomas: SCOTUS should reconsider cases ruled in favor of based on substantive due process precedents"

But you aren't interested in truth.

 

No they dont, no one can afford to pick up and move every time the state passes a new assinine law.
Bush took away the rights to assemble, or at least for a while.
You confuse rule by the feds for safe harbor against state abuses. Yes I prefere safe harbor which appears to be virtually gone since scotus transferred the usurping of rights from the feds to the states and the states had all their draconian laws prewritten and ready to go! Cant waste so much as 1 nanosecond.

 

come back to reality please

 

You keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to continue to believe that you won. Its obvious you can't prove your point.

 

wish the religious fanatics would, but not sure if they ever will

 

You're confused. Being able to move is not based on affordability. It's based on freedom to move. Have you never heard the phrase: "Where there's a will, you'll find a way." Our southern border is currently being over-runned by those who can't afford the move. In fact their motivation is all about money and earning more than they can in their own country. So, please spare me the affordability argument. It won't wash.