A Republican Senate candidate endorsed by Peter Thiel is campaigning on a pledge to vote only for judges who oppose the SCOTUS ruling establishing the right to birth control
OK, OK, all very American. The picture editor has decided to use a demo outside the Westminster Parliament as the illustration.
I mean, yes, well, but it was London Bridge that was sold to Arizona, not the Palace.
Do they mean the right to abortion?
I’m pro abortion generally, but the “right” to abortion really pisses me off.
The article seems a bit muddled.
“His campaign site says he will only vote for judges who believe Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided.”
“The Griswold decision overturned a state ban on birth control, protecting the right to use contraceptives.”
If the state had a right to ban birth control then change the State Constitution. It’s an odious right for the State to have.
On the other hand if the State didn’t, then it’s perfectly OK that judges overturned a State Act as unconstitutional – that’s what they are for. On the third hand, the WKPD article makes it sound to me as if the decision was just another judicial putsch by SCOTUS, based on an entirely fictional right to marital privacy accorded – sez them – by the US Constitution.
Jesus, the American courts are a disgrace.
Dearime, you should listen to the Wrongful Conviction podcast. American justice? It’s truly frightening.
dearieme
The Oz High Court can do similar things as well, alas.
But while I tend to dither over abortion, I must admit I have no problems with contraception. So I’m pleased the bloke supports the right to it.
I don’t know whether Blake is stupid or a liar, but his website (blakemasters.com) does indeed contain the text quoted (“Vote only for federal judges who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion”). Since Griswold was specifically about banning contraception, I don’t see how you can argue that you are not against contraception but oppose that judgement. Since he makes a point of his religion, I suppose that’s a strong point in favour of stupidity.
Additionally, I find the usual amusement of the juxtaposition of two points on his website:
* EXPAND GUN RIGHTS
* PROTECT BABIES, DON’T LET THEM BE KILLED
If the US constitution gives people a constitutional right to purchase whatever they wish to purchase, surely outlawing the purchase of crystal meth is unconstitutional.
“Roe and Griswold and Casey”: the fucker needs a punctuation lesson too.
jgh. The right to purchase *may* be a constitutional right in the US, but it doesn’t state anywhere such purchase would be without consequences… 😉
@jgh
Indeed. I have always wondered why it took a constitutional amendment (18th) to ban alcohol, but banning lots of other drugs doesn’t need one.
@Charles
Always interesting to see this lapse in logic from the American Left…
Number one argument against Prohibition and the War on Drugs is, “You’ll never be able to stop us. We’ll find a way!”
*Even my great-grandfather distilled his own alcohol on his farm in the 1930s.
Number one argument against deportation of illegal immigrants: “There are tens of millions of ‘undocumented immigrants’ here. You’ll never be able to deport all of them.”
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment: “Why can’t we just confiscate all of the guns in this country?”