without an amendment

The abortion issue is tough for me and I am not sure that it is the best example of judicial activism, because I think that the SC did the legislature a favor. Voting for the limited right of abortion would have been political suicide - no matter how distasteful / abhorrent it is, it was likely preferred over the back alley coat hanger days. By saying it was a constitutional issue, they bailed them out. I'm probably wrong, but I never stopped to think about it that way.

Although unless people claim using rc cars as their religion then there may be a problem

it was left to the states prior

and I think the states would have converged to where they are now

after all abortion is popular, at least in most states

Abortion has been on the decline for many years

Percentage wise

I don't mean doing abortion

I mean the support of the ability

Oh

Well, when states wanted slavery to be left to the states it started a war. I wonder if abortion would be the same

If she held that someone with similar legal philosophy to Scalia should replace any and all vacancies on the court that could be a view she could hold with full integrity ... you might not agree but I don't think that is a reason to doubt her integrity

obviously it didn't

(because they didn't leave it to the states; they mandated the right to abortion)

(and we are still here)

gah I think that was a misunderstanding, don't frustrate me with this talk 🙂

(i'm jk, talk away)

I’m not a big fan of states rights , well I can’t think of it being a benefit currently, so far they have used to to keep weed illegal, make abortion illegal, historically it was about slavery, , what’s a good state right used to give to protect its citizens freedoms ?

Her body her choice

not if she's in the womb, huh?

I didn't get that she was advocating for all seats to be filled by originalists. I think she was being protective of her mentor's seat. I get that she might not hold RGB in the same regard. I just thought it was morally inconsistent and , consequently, could be construed as hypocritical. The question was posed as to why someone might disagree with her nomination and that was part of it. The other was her lack of practical experience.

um weed is _federally_ illegal

some states have legalized it

every federal entitlement is an example of something that the states should do themselves

@TaLoN132 Kagan was never a judge. You don’t think she is worthy of holding a supreme court seat?

Right but that’s in spite of it being federally illegal

it is crazy that people in CA pay 40% (upper) in income taxes to the federal government, and the state has little room left to tax for things like universal healthcare

@realz, you just advanced to level 20!

why wouldn't she advocate that all seats be filled with originalists ... that would be a consist view ... you could disagree with it but it would be consistent

yea, and isn't that something an example of a state doing something that the federal government is trying to tak away?

The idea of states rights comes down to do you think we're a federation or not. Frankly, I don't think most people view the US as a federation, therefore states rights are restricted

you literally just asked for an example of this

Right

I don't think I want to be a part of a country where people far away will dictate my local laws

if you extend this to the world, you wouldn't like it one bit

Yeah but doesn’t that go both ways

if we made china the 51st state, they would completely swamp all our local policies at the federal level

I don't want that

I don't want it with CA either

every single partisan issue in the world is brought to the federal level