like they were crying for when it came to roe vs wade aye??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_religious_cases
Weren't they just telling everyone else to move to another state if they didn't like to live in a state that banned abortion?
shouldn't the same apply?!
2007-10-01 05:29:48 · 14 answers · asked by Boss H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
reading comprehension problems teekno? let me draw you a picture...
One week right wingers claim...let states decide abortion rights it should be left up to the states, and if people don't like their state making abortion illegal, they should move to another. the very next week, when it doesn't agree with their emotion based ideals, they now want to let the feds decide.
2007-10-01 08:36:52 · update #1
no not really brian, maybe you should find in any catholic book were God says birth control is a sin. sorry but that has been added as a little extension to their religion. also, if they don't like the state laws, they can always move...right??
2007-10-01 08:38:42 · update #2
thats right pfo the states are deciding, and right-wingers don't like it. that was the whole point of the question you misunderstood while calling someone else braindead.
2007-10-01 08:41:10 · update #3
yes john_mcd_77, that is more or less the point. maybe you should read the question and think about it.
2007-10-01 08:43:42 · update #4
Is just like the gay marriage ban amendment. Why not let the states decide if they want to allow gay marriage or not? They want the federal government to intervene in state's affairs which is not conservatism at all.
2007-10-01 05:56:06 · answer #1 · answered by cynical 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
These cases cannot logically or rationally be compared to Roe v. Wade.
Regarding abortion, each state had determined whether it was a legal or an illegal procedure in their state. Roe v. Wade basically usurped what was previously considered a state issue, and the activist court then imposed its social values on the whole nation, in what is quite correctly considered a Constitutional abomination.
The NY case is about the state government forcing all employers' health insurance to cover contraception and abortion, which is contrary to many religions' principles. So the state trampled on the religious groups' rights to not support things contrary to their principles.
As for not allowing religious groups to use public meeting rooms like other public groups can is really just discrimination against religion.
Roe v. Wade was a violation of the federalism of the Constitution.
These other cases are government discrimination against religious organizations.
So very different, no connection at all. At least not any logical or rational connection.
----------
You seem to deliberately miss the point that there is a violation of religious rights going on in these cases. States do NOT have a right to violate peoples' rights, per the 14th Amendment.
2007-10-01 05:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is the whole bird for you both wings. Deny preventative health care measures. Send it to the states? Gun laws went far there didn't they? School shooting in Memphis? What again?
Somewhere down the line we need national votes for these issues since clearly we can not trust politicians. Look at the voting records lately of Senators running for President. Absent for more than half. And we elected them? Hillary Clinton claimed for re-election promise I won't run? Now she runs from her seat doing nothing for the good State of New York. Will candidates tackle abortion issues? Not likely.
Some days politics is just for the birds.
2007-10-01 05:40:45 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, you are comparing First Amendment rights with (alleged) Ninth Amendment rights, which are very different things.
"Right-wingers" are not opposed to the legal principle that the First Amendment is "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment and is, hence, applicable to the states. And that is what the two cases mentioned in that article are about -- First Amendment rights.
But Roe v. Wade was an alleged Ninth Amendment right -- the so-called "right to privacy" -- and many of us, not just "right-wingers" ..... see Justice Hugo Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut -- are opposed to the U.S. Sup. Ct. (or any other branch of the federal gov't) intervening into a state issue by trying to make states obey whatevertheheck the Ninth Amendment principle is. And the Sup. Ct. in the Roe decision EXPLICITLY stated that the Ninth was pertinent to its conclusion.
2007-10-01 05:39:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
OK, braindead, the article says the SC is not hearing the cases meaning the states ARE deciding the outcomes. And since you're such a braindead liberal, I'll point out that this is evidence that Bush's stacking of the court is not going against America. I happen to agree with the SC and the state's decisions, which are going against religion in favor of the state!
2007-10-01 05:39:30 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you understand the article at all? The "right winger" court just upheld medical benefits that the religious fundies don't like, and it says the library doesn't have to let religious groups free-load on public property.
This is fundamental seperation of church and state. Its hard enough to make a supreme court justice look like a typical party hack, but when they make decisions like this that go against their "assumed" partisan position, its even harder.
2007-10-01 05:47:54 · answer #6 · answered by freedom first 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anyone has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I'm glad the court didn't hear these cases. The less the SC gets involved in these matters, the better.
Love, Jack
2007-10-01 05:34:01 · answer #7 · answered by Jack 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
...the Feds should focus on creating jobs and protecting the nation.with those two ideas they could make this place a better one...otherwise it's all a crock and all they are doing is stealing their way thru office.
2007-10-01 05:41:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is NOT what they are saying. They aren't going to hear the case at all!
Also, the Supremes are no right wingers! (As a liberal you may think that since they are farther to the right of you.)
2007-10-01 05:37:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Completely different issue, but hey this is about freedom of religion...
I guess its time for the Churches to fire some of their people..
"Depart from me ye accursed."
2007-10-01 05:37:12 · answer #10 · answered by midnyteryder1961 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋