HOLY BASED

This is the important part

Finally some fucking consistency

States Rights are the vaccine to tyranny

>muh body muh choice

So which is it? Either:

1. You support vaccine mandates, AND banning abortions

OR

2. You are against vaccine mandates, AND you support access to abortion for anyone who wants one.

Those are your two choices. Anything else makes you a hypocrite.

I choose #2 by the way.

>undemocratic
That's the point. Democracy is dying because it's ideals failed. Good bye democrats.

Attached: 1655515323921m.jpg (921x1024, 167.4K)

>t. somebody who probably complains about corrupt elites.
So fucking hilarious. How about we hold them accountable for once by becoming 100% democratic?

Imagine talking like a fucking Brit lmao kys

I actually read the opinion on the case, and it's pretty clear that they'll come after the other sex-cases (contraception, fag marriage, anal sex) sex. Alito claimed in his opinion that "nothing in judgment should be construed to have any bearing on other cases" (paraphrased), but this is a totally unprincipled excuse, because the rest of Alito's opinion abrogates the idea of substantive due process granted by the 5th Amendment ("nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). The other cases were also based on the idea of substantive due process existing, i.e. that the state can't make arbitrary morality-laws regulating private behavior like the usage of contraception. The reasoning of the majority opinion rests on such substantive due process not existing, and the only threadbare distinction that Alito makes is that in those other cases, the State's "interest in protecting life" is not a factor - yet if the entirety of the concept of substantive due process is abolished, as was ruled and as was the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade (and NOT the State's "interest in protecting life"), then logically, the right to buttfucking, contraception, fag marriage, and a host of other implied rights must fall as well.
The only one who was honest about this was Thomas, who made precisely this argument: the very idea of substantive due process was bullshit, and what the 5th Amendment guarantees is due PROCESS, not the protection of any specific liberty. E.g. the State very much could make contraception illegal under the 5th Amendment, even for private use in one's own home, even between married couples, as long as a process (in the form of a proper trial, say) was provided for the accused to clear their names. But the behavior itself can be made illegal.

pencil neck cringer

But the two are exactly the same. They're a refusal of government overreach.
You may go dilate then kill yourself now.

>thinking that pure democracy solves anything
>thinking that the majority of people will vote against the elites
You have to be 18 years or older to post here

>corrupt elites
Yes
youtu.be/QE7PwqmzSu0

Attached: 1655940700298.jpg (568x631, 45.82K)

At the end of the day I believe a person should have bodily choice. I believe Abortion should be safe legal and RARE. However many women use it as a tactic. If a women is sole determint in if a baby is born ... a man should have no legal reasoning in supporting a child he did not want. Ultimately much like Adam and Eve it's women who fuck things up.

I cannot support a women choice in murdering her baby that is 7 months old. Doesn't make sense considering if someone kicked her in the stomach then they would be charged with murder

If the court was liberal the Constitution would be a piece of paper they wipe their ass communally with as a token of how progressive they are for ignoring the declarations of the founding fathers. I don't talk to leftists anymore, they're all dime a dozen NPC's or extremists separately hoping to be the next martyr for the cause to be cemented in history books never realizing that martyrs are always killed.

There is no constitutional right to kill babies and should never be one.

The judgment was perfectly sound and actually restored a competency to the democratic legislatures. Whenever the SC "discovers" some constitutionally protected right, it actually places its adjudication forever beyond the reach of the people through legislative effort.
In this case, it just happened to favor conservatives and yes: it was entire pretextual, just like all other cases are. In every case, the end result is already pre-determined and the judicial "reasoning" is simply constructed, no matter how circuitously or torturously, to arrive at that pre-determined goal. This was the case with campaign financing, term limits, interracial marriage, sodomy, as well as any other case you care to mention. Anyone who believes that the SC impartially reasons is a fucking fool.
One should also note that 0 liberals protested throughout the decades during which the Court was majority-liberal.

Never expect honesty from a leftist.
This will also be a 1PBTID thread, they're shilling overtime the last few days, not only from American users, btw.

The Supreme Court ruled that way because the majority of its members are personally opposed to abortion, let's not bullshit ourselves. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 to federally mandate the legality of some types of abortion because the majority of its members then were in favor of abortion.

sad that retards are allowed to use the internet, but i respect your right to be an absolutely retarded disingenuous faggot / troll

2 all da way

Why can’t y’all retards just be moderate.

Roe was already iffy because abortion is not protected in the constitution. If democrats, or any pro-abortion, politician wanted to actually protect abortion they would've passed a law or even ratified the constitution.