Yeah but it's already been ruled that gun licenses do not impede your 2a rights

There is quite literally no evidence of "millions of fake votes"

In the most recent election, the Dem House votes outnumbered the Repub House votes by 53 million to 45 million

so what is it that makes trump populist

specifically amongst people that actually voted

With how courts and legislators have gradually eroded the second amendment rights, I don't see any reason to believe a Roe defense would work.

Jerbs

Also, Democratic house representation is about their vote share or slightly above it. So gerrymandering isn't favoring the Republicans this time around.

Sent in my feedback on there

Same.

I didnt vote in the midterms

The idea that you can just mandate people turn over social media is bothersome to me.

The 2 people to vote for ducked ass

Trying to think of what I wanted to talk about at first...

I think it was either the patriot law that passed under bush

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

Are you talking about something similar to article 13?

"In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”)."

What about the babys constitutional rights to being alive?

Or letting civilians have a larger access to military force so it wouldn't be nearly as hard to stop a tyranical government

Didn't one of the justices come out saying after the fact that they conjured something out of air to justify their finding in favor of abortion?

No, they didn't

" In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly “to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.”"

Abortion is a horrible horrible thing

No argument

But tyranny is too

<:TimThink:482277772497125378>

"Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable."

What is viable?

I think you could argue this propose NY statute would place an undue burden on individuals seeking to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights

Again, I really do think Roe is relevant

Re viability: "It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability."

I just think there's more relevant case law than Roe. I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's the best legal argument for the case.

Again, I'd say the case law regarding stuff like the FBI unloacking iphones is more relevant.

I'm a passionate supporter of Roe v Wade not because I like abortion, I do not, but because Roe underpins nearly all future rulings that vacated laws that unduly invaded privacy

FBI unlocking phones is a response to an actual crime

This NY statute is a prospective measure

And therefore I believe you make the argument that it does not pass the test of Roe that statutes “express only the legitimate state interests at stake.”

Sooo, ya know what'd be cool

If the scotus was curb stomped

This statute attempts to punish people for thought crimes