WHY DO GUN OWNERS HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR GUNS, THAN WOMEN HAVE OVER THEIR OWN BODIES?

U.S Supreme Court Decisions Based on Feelings, NOT the Law

America

Welcome to America. The gun totin’ capital of the world.

Last week’s news: the Highland Park, Illinois Fourth of July Parade Massacre. 7 innocent souls murdered, and 39 others injured. To be clear, the word ‘injury,’ should not be confused with a ‘bruised knee.’ One of the shooting victims, an 8 year old child, sustained life threatening injuries; the bullet that tore through his small body severed his spine. He is now paralyzed from the waist down.

A Fourth of July Celebration is typically celebrated with friends, family, parades, hot dogs, ice cream and fireworks. NOT Military grade weapons used to fire upon human beings in tee shirts and shorts on a warm summer day who are merely spectators sitting on lawn chairs waiving U.S. flags and children blowing bubbles along the parade route.

I am disgusted. And how do you feel?

More importantly, do you wonder how the Supreme Court Conservative Justices feel? Oh, wait a gosh darn minute! They ruled it is totally okay to walk around the United States of America with a gun. Any gun.

What contrived constitutional excuse will they come up with to justify another mass shooting?

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution, are literally rolling over in their graves as to how the Justices have twisted the meaning of the Second Amendment’s ‘Right to Bear Arms.’

At this point, any law abiding citizen must wonder…Do the Justices even have feelings? Do they care about the catastrophic impact their rulings are having on today’s society? Oh yes they do!

Based on their recent rulings, the Justices feel:

1. A woman has no rights.

2. A woman has no rights, because these Justices took away the right for women to make personal decisions over HER own body.

3. The Justices feel human life is sacrosanct. Therefore, abortion is illegal.

4. The Justices feel that law abiding citizens can carry guns outside of the home, anywhere in the United States to protect themselves.

5. The Justices feel that human life of a gun owner is sacrosanct. Therefore, a law abiding citizen can carry a gun, and can use that gun to shoot and to kill another human being if that gun totin’ person feels threatened.

6. Do not quibble over the words ‘feel threatened;’ if a person feels threatened, that person can and will protect themselves. The Court essentially gave the green light to shoot to kill. Hey, I did not write that decision, the Conservative Justices handed that decision down last week.

I have a few questions for the Conservative Justices:

1. What is the definition of a Law Abiding Citizen as per the US Supreme Court today?

2. Who is afforded the rights of a Law Abiding Citizen? Any person?

3. Is a person who lawfully obtains a gun a Law Abiding Citizen?

4. Is a person who lawfully obtains a gun, and then intentionally shoots at other law abiding citizens watching a parade, a Law Abiding Citizen?

5. Is a fetus a Law Abiding Citizen?

6. Is a Woman a Law Abiding Citizen?

7. Is a Child a Law Abiding Citizen?

8. Is a ten year old girl who is raped considered by the Court to be a Law Abiding Citizen?

9. How does the Court define ‘Human Life’?

10. Are Justices, who went to Law School, not Medical School, qualified to determine when Human Life Begins?

11. What value do the Justices place on a Human Life?

12. Is the term ‘Human Life’ only applicable to a fetus?

13. Is the term ‘Human Life’ applicable to victims of gun violence?

14. Is the term ‘Human Life’ applicable to white, brown, purple human beings, women and girls?

15. Last week, a 10 year old rape victim was 6 weeks pregnant and was denied the right to an abortion. What value does the Court place on that victim’s human life?

16. The Justices are not Physicians, not Scientists. Nor are they Clergy, although the Conservative Justices on the Court seem to be preaching religion. They strive to espouse virtuous morals…yet is it moral to force a 10 year old child who is a rape victim to give birth to the evidence of the crime committed upon her?

17. Does the Court ascribe Rights to victims of gun violence?

18. Does the Court only ascribe Rights to Gun Owners?

19. Is the Right to Bear Arms greater than the rights of a victim of gun violence?

Hypothetical: What if a pregnant Woman who lives in Texas, a verified Law Abiding Citizen, walked into a Doctor’s office totin’ an AR 15, and demanded an abortion? She allegedly was protecting herself from the pregnancy, because she could die if she carried full term. Can this Woman assert her 2nd Amendment Right to Protect Her Own Body?

Reality: Why do gun owners have more control over their guns, than women have over their own bodies?

Microphone drop…

CHURCH : STATE

OIL : WATER

The Messiah had spoken…

Get it? Oil and water don’t Mix. Church and State don’t mix. And the
Messiah, Ronald Reagan decreed that edict during his two terms in the Oval
Office.

As I live and breathe, with my hand upon a bible, the highest court in our
land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has always ruled Separation of Church and State
is PRECEDENT case law. Period, end of discussion.

I was educated at Public Schools. I received my Law Degree from a Private
Roman Catholic Law School.

At my Law School, we were not ‘schooled’ in an alternative reality
accompanied by alternative facts. My Constitutional Law Professor relied on
real facts to teach this subject. Indeed. We studied real Supreme Court cases
and learned how precedent case law evolves not over months, or years,
but decades.

To be clear, it was always my understanding Supreme Court precedents are
final. I.e.. Roe v Wade was precedent case law for over 50 years. The
Conservatives Justices currently sitting on the bench all acknowledged that Roe
was precedent, established case law, not to be re-litigated. So much for their
word…

Many legal scholars and everyday folk interpret the U.S. Constitution to be
a living, breathing document that was written to adapt to societal changes. You
heard me… in my opinion, the Founding Fathers, wanted to heed the will
of the American people
while upholding Constitutionally protected
freedoms.

On the other hand, some folks believe the Constitution must be strictly
construed
, where there is no flexibility to its interpretation. This is
akin to the saying, “follow the letter of the law”. No surprise here
that many ‘conservatives’ espouse this opinion.

So what does this have to do with prayer at a public school? Everything
these days.

As we all know, the Supreme Court Conservative Justices ruled in less than
one week, that people can walk anywhere in the United States with a gun; Women
have no rights over their body’s; and now, a football coach can pray on the 50
yard line at the public high school he teaches at.

Clearly, these Conservative Justices do not give a shit about legal precedent
and have no respect for the Justices who served on the Court before them. Their
behavior on a professional level is abhorrent. As I have previously stated, the
Justices are ruling on cases based on their own personal opinion/bias, not the
rule of law.

Oh wait a minute. Are you thinking, ‘it’s no big deal if a coach gets down
on one knee at the 50-yard line during a football game held at a public high
school’? Oh, but the coach prayed after the game. Like that makes a
difference.

Seriously, this is really bad. It totally violates precedent case law
regarding Separation of Church and State.

Welcome to the Supreme Court Crazy Town. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the
majority decision and ruled the coach’s prayers on the 50-yard line of a
football field were ‘private speech’ protected by the First Amendment. Oh, and
by the way, the Majority opinion believed this was all okey dokey, because the
coach was not representing the public school district. Seriously? This is a legal
opinion by a Justice?

Stop for a moment! Let me get this straight…the coach was on the field
when he was actively working in his capacity as coach of the public high school
football team. And then he engaged in Private Speech? That is absurd!
The coach was praying on the 50-yard line in public…what is private about
that? I have to stop; my head is going to explode.

As a point of reference, at the Private Roman Catholic Law School I
attended, when we studied Supreme Court Landmark Decisions, i.e.., Roe v
Wade
, a Priest did not come to our lecture hall and discuss the Catholic
Church’s opinion regarding abortion. That would have been wholly inappropriate.

I just am unable to write at the moment. I am watching the January 6 Senate
Hearings, and an ex-white aide to Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that Trump
wanted to remove all the magnetometers so the angry mob could storm the Capital
with their AR 15s, brass knuckles, and other weapons. Trump knew the crowd had
weapons, body armor when he told them to march to the capital. Better yet,
Trump wanted to go to the Capital when all this chaos was unfolding, and Trump
apparently lunged at secret service detail, in the Presidential Limo, and he,
yes Trump, tried to grab the steering wheel to drive to the U.S. Capital.

Microphone drop…

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NO REGARD FOR THE LIFE OF A WOMAN

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NO REGARD FOR THE LIFE OF A WOMAN

https://gaytoday.blog/2022/06/27/the-u-s-supreme-court-has-no-regard-for-the-life-of-a-woman-2/
— Read on gaytoday.blog/2022/06/27/the-u-s-supreme-court-has-no-regard-for-the-life-of-a-woman-2/

WAKE UP AMERICA!

VOTE for Freedom of Choice

In the Good ‘ole U.S. of A, there are people in this country who espouse conservative views as to how we ALL should live. Oh please. I know you are not surprised. It is not like I am re-inventing the wheel.

Trump, who’s name makes me cringe, was part of a bigger picture to satisfy the dreams and aspirations of the minority views of this country.

Trump was the vehicle these conservatives all used to fulfill their agenda. And by the by, these conservatives have been planning and plotting for over 50 years to mold the good ‘ole U.S. of A. into their own image of how this Country should look politically and socially.

Yes, they have been insidious, however, this was all done openly, in the public view. And no one stopped them. For years, conservatives have been changing how we vote; they continue to ‘re-district’ voting, change the boundaries to favor their own conservative candidates. They want to do away with absentee voting, limit the hours the vote, reduce the amount of places a citizen can vote, and in some cases, impose identification requirements that make it near impossible for some to vote. This is truly diabolical; it is all done to restrict access to voting. To prevent the ‘other voters’, namely democrats, people of color, poor people, people who live in rural areas, people who live in urban areas, from exercising their Constitutional Right to Vote.

Thus, these so-called ‘Conservative Folks’, have been for years, working at the State and Local levels to change the rules for voting. The upside is that their candidates win elections.

Oh, but wait, there is more. The Conservatives knew what they were doing. The goal was to control State AND Local Governments, to effectuate their political, social agenda.

Surprised? Oh come on. Really? And finally, drum roll, the moment they have been planning for 50 years… for the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe, and leave it to the individual States (that the Conservatives control), to effectuate a total Ban on abortion. Bingo.

I am not finished yet. Our reality gets worse. When Trump was President (help), he ‘appointed’ an excessive number of CONSERVATIVE Judges to sit on the the Federal Courts throughout the U.S.

Now, did Trump pick these conservative judges? Hell no. The bandwagon of conservatives, took control of that train, and crafted a new Federal Court system that would espouse Conservative views. Hence, the proverbial wheels were set in motion to ultimately overturn Roe.

Let’s talk about the current Justices on the Supreme Court. Again, no surprise. The three judges that Trump appointed, were part of this disgusting agenda to change America, for the worse. In the spirit of Trump, these “Supreme Court Appointees”, all lied when asked at their Senate Confirmation Hearings and private meetings to Senators, as to whether they would overturn Roe.

Trump lied to the American Public, so it naturally followed that his appointees to the highest court in our land, would lie as to their judicial intentions. I really have no words for this.

Wake Up America!

If you do not want to live in an oppressive society, where law-abiding citizens are stripped of their individual freedoms of choice, you must VOTE for the candidates who support a modern society that respects the right to privacy, the right to choose, the right to enjoy constitutional freedoms.

The reversal of Roe has sent shock waves around the world in all free societies. First world nations are looking at the U.S. and scratching their heads in disbelief. Why? Because as a Superpower, we moving backwards, and thwarting the will of the majority of Americans.

TIME TO ABORT THE TEXAS HEARTBEAT ACT

Save a Woman’s Right to Abortion and Reproductive Health Care Now!

TIME TO ABORT THE TEXAS HEARTBEAT ACT

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury; you are tasked with the responsibility to determine whether the Texas Heartbeat Act SB 8 is unconstitutional and therefore must be struck down.

The Texas Heartbeat Act SB 8 was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 1, 2021. The Supreme Court Justices focused solely on the legal procedural issues of this case and did not address the factual issues that address the long standing Constitutional Right to Abortion as set forth in the landmark decision Roe v. Wade.

Thus, the scope of your deliberation is limited to determine whether Texas deprived citizens their Constitutional Right to an Abortion by drafting a law that precludes Federal and State judicial review of the constitutionality of the statute.

The effect is stunning: Texas SB 8 silences a woman’s Constitutional Right to Abortion and prevents her from having her rightful ‘day in court’.

In addition, as you will learn, this so-called ‘law’ deputizes people to become Abortion Bounty Hunters to literally accuse anyone of assisting a woman carry-out her Constitutional Right to Abortion. Which ironically, the Court did not address.

FYI, ignoring issues does not make them go away. But the Justices know that.

Realistically ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court appears to be on its way to extinguishing the Constitutional Right to Abortion and Reproductive Health Care for Women that was established in Roe v Wade. Thus, the monumental task of upholding Supreme Court precedent case law rests on your shoulders.

As you hear the facts of this case, I am certain you will conclude that Texas SB 8 in its entirety is unconstitutional and must be struck down. The Supreme Court is having a difficult time garnering a majority vote on this matter, so maybe you can ‘help’ them see the proverbial light and uphold their own precedent. Accomplish what the Supreme Court ought to do NOW.

What is next for women? What other rights can and will be silenced?

Thank you.

The Facts of the Case

Elected officials of the great state of Texas enacted the law SB 8 to prevent women from obtaining an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy.

There are no ‘exceptions’ to this law. It does not matter if the pregnancy resulted from:

  1. Rape.
  2. Sexual Assault.
  3. Sexual Abuse.
  4. Incest.

SB 8 is a ban on abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy.

However, the ban on abortion was not the question before the United States Supreme Court. Surprising…right?

No, not really.

Wait a minute. You ask yourself… “Why didn’t the Supreme Court determine whether SB 8 violates the constitutionally protected right to abortion?” The answer is simple. Well, not so simple.

The Court knew they would hear oral arguments on December 1, 2021, notably the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case will determine whether the Court will uphold Roe v. Wade.

Until the Court renders that decision, the 50 year-old constitutionally protected right to abortion will continue to precariously dangle by a thread.

The Issue of the Case

The Supreme Court deemed the only justiciable issue before them was whether anyone can sue to stop the enforcement of Texas SB 8. Indeed, a curious question to a non-attorney. Nevertheless, a deeply concerning legal procedural question.

SB 8 Evades Judicial Review

Ladies and gentlemen, I am confident you are confused. Yes, you are correct in thinking that the purpose of this law is to ban abortion. However, that is not why the law was written and enacted. The purpose of Texas SB 8 was insidious at the outset: it was written to specifically evade any judicial review.

What does judicial review mean? Exactly what it says. Courts are empowered to review the lawfulness of a Federal or State statute. In this case, the drafters of SB 8 intentionally wrote this legislation to be beyond reproach; essentially bulletproof to any judicial review.

Shocking? No.

Sneaky? Yes.

SB 8, not only enforced a ban on abortion, but legislated that no person, no entity, can sue  the State of Texas to argue the lawfulness of this law.

This is the perplexing part of SB 8. Generally, when a person alleges they suffer an injury from a Federal or State statute, that person will sue the entity (the Federal, State or Local Government) that enacted said legislation. The relief sought would be to invalidate the law considered to be unconstitutional or invalid; to stop enforcement of the law.

However, Texas claims SB 8 is not enforced by any State official. Thus, opponents of this law who seek to stop enforcement of it have a real problem determining the correct named party/defendant to sue.

For the pregnant woman from Texas who is prevented from getting an abortion due to SB 8, who does she sue? What party does she name, to argue that the law is denying her constitutional right to an abortion? The answer is… I do not know. And neither did the Supreme Court Justices when they heard oral arguments in this matter.

The unmitigated gall of these so-called Texas ‘legislators,’ who allegedly represent the interests of their constituents. They drafted and enacted a law that prevents the very people who elected them from legally challenging this abortion ban.

Texas Asserts They Do Not Enforce SB 8

Wait a minute…just what did the drafters of SB 8 do? According to SB 8, Texas Governmental Officials do not enforce SB 8. Funny, that is what the State of Texas asserts.

Ask yourself:  Well, if the State does not enforce this law, then who enforces SB 8 in Texas?

The Enforcers

Pursuant to the law, this legislation deputizes anyone who is not a State Official to enforce SB 8.

Ladies and gentlemen, kindly pause for a moment. Ask yourself: Do you really think the State of Texas is not enforcing SB 8?

Please, follow along with me. Banning all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to women. And as bad as that is, the insidious component of this law is the deputizing of private citizens to be knighted ‘Abortion Bounty Hunters,’ to hunt down and accuse any person who participated in the procurement of an abortion.

The Abortion Bounty Hunters

Incredulous as this sounds, it is worse than you can imagine. To reiterate, the State of Texas has turned plain ‘ole folk into Abortion Bounty Hunters, to prey on anyone who seeks to get an abortion. Oh, and the bounty is up to $10,000. A rather profitable endeavor to be an Abortion Bounty Hunter.

Keep in mind y’all, Texas says they do not enforce this law.

It does not matter that the deputized citizen/bounty hunter, who becomes a plaintiff in a future civil suit to claim the reward, was not directly injured by the person they are suing. Which is odd, because in the real world of civil litigation, a plaintiff must allege he/she sustained some injury caused by the defendant.

Then again, this is Texas. Clearly, they just make up their own rules.

Seriously ladies and gentlemen. SB 8 appoints private citizens to become bounty hunters to sniff out abortion in Texas. It is clear these bounty hunters are acting as an arm of the State of Texas, and this ‘bounty hunter’ will become eventual plaintiffs against their prey to recover the cash reward, the bounty, for enforcing the law.

According to Justice Clarence Thomas, ‘SB 8 plaintiffs are acting in concert with Texas to enforce this law.’ To clarify ladies and gentlemen, this means that the great state of Texas is enforcing this law.

Sorry Texas, your government is enforcing this law. But y’all already know that. Shame on Texas. They can’t hide behind their bounty hunters and proclaim they do not enforce the law.

Aiders and Abettors of Abortion

The following are just a few of the people who can be sued for ‘aiding and abetting’ the procurement of an abortion and be liable for payment of the cash reward:

  1. The husband/partner who drove a woman to an abortion clinic/private physician.
  2. The cab/uber driver who drove a woman to an abortion clinic/private physician
  3. The nurse who assisted in the abortion.
  4. The Doctor who performed the abortion.
  5. The woman who received the abortion.

A shocking list of ‘so-called’ aiders and abettors. These people are your sister, mother, brother, father, uncle, grandma, grandpa, doctor; get the picture?

Right Leaning Justices

Apparently, some Supreme Court Justices were more concerned about a State appointing Bounty Hunters to enforce their laws, as opposed to banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be ‘apolitical.’ However, this Court is clearly aligned along partisan lines, which is a no-no. The Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents, do publicly espouse conservative political views. Yes, these ‘right leaning Justices,’ who now comprise the Majority rule of this Court, are not ‘fans’ of Roe, and have expressed a willingness to dilute that Landmark Decision.

Once again, that is no excuse to not address this Texas ban on abortion.

Women Have Constitutional Rights

Clearly, the majority of the Justices are aligned with Texas in this matter. Did these Justices forget that the very Court they sit on has ruled that a Pregnant Woman has Constitutional Rights, but the unborn fetus does not?

A fetus at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, and 23 weeks is not recognized by this Court to have any Constitutional Rights. Roe v Wade determined the viability of a fetus at 24 weeks; the RIGHTS OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN MUST BE BALANCED WITH STATE RIGHTS.

Oh, don’t you love selective memory.

However, are you really surprised? I am not. Let’s be serious. Texas clearly does not care about the health, safety and welfare of a woman. Because if they actually did care about a woman, they would not have enacted SB 8.

And why should the Justices address the abortion component of SB 8 now? No matter that all abortions in Texas have come to a screeching halt due to this law. No matter that women are suffering. No balancing of a pregnant woman’s rights with that of the State. This is just another news cycle, hoped to be forgotten.

The pain and suffering experienced by thousands of Pregnant Texas Women who are unlawfully denied their right to an abortion will not be forgotten. As of this writing, 62% of Americans polled support Roe. The Court cannot turn a deaf ear on the ‘pulse’ of the Majority of Americans.

The Justices are working on their own timetable: they heard the Mississippi case on December 1 and will continue to erode at the Court’s rule of law by not upholding precedent.

Great message from the Court: Screw you Texas Women.

Legalization of Bounty Hunters

Justice Kavanaugh, in his infinite wisdom, pondered what would happen if the court upheld SB 8 and thus permitted the State to use bounty hunters to limit other Constitutional Rights.

I ask you: At this moment in time and history, what is more important than a woman’s Constitutional Right to Abortion and to Reproductive Care?

Well, Justice Kavanaugh was more concerned about the potential restriction of the Second Amendment. Really? Bless his heart.

Guns? What do they have to do with Abortion Rights?

Oh, and yet, this case gets better. The Firearms Policy Coalition, submitted an amicus brief and was very concerned that ‘Blue States’ (i.e. California, New York) will act just like Texas and create unlawful procedures and penalties to enforce a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. Mind you, they were not talking about the Texas ban on abortion being unconstitutional.

My word! Heavens to Betsy! This coalition was sickened at the mere thought of liberal states banning the sale and ownership of handguns and appoint bounty hunters to hunt down gun-totin’ people. Can you imagine?

Of course, Kavanaugh agreed with this amicus brief and envisioned the ownership or sale of a handgun would be illegal in States like New York and California, if the court upheld SB 8. Oh, my word! Don’t you love the ‘tit-for-tat’ game?

Children of the Court, oh, I mean Justices, stay focused on the Abortion component of SB 8, not the procedural smoke screen.

Reap What You Sow

You betcha Kavanaugh! Your worst nightmare came true! Bravo to Governor Gavin Newsome of California. Newsome just proposed a gun law that would be modeled on the Texas one. Sucks when you have to take your own medicine.

Bottom Line

In simple English, SB 8 is a nasty law. It completely ignores established Constitutional Law, exempts itself from any Judicial Review, and deputizes citizens to become Abortion Bounty Hunters to enforce a law that in fact violates Constitutional Rights. Not to mention it silences women’s rights.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, consider this thought: If women are stripped of their Constitutional Right to Abortion and Reproductive Rights, what is the next right women will lose? The right to vote? What about rights that are not protected by the Constitution? What if a State wants to enact a law that prevents women from attending college or driving an automobile?

I betcha did not think women could be stripped of those rights. If it happens in other countries where women’s rights are restricted, why not here?

If SB 8 is constitutional, a State is empowered to enact any law that is not subject to judicial review. Frightening to say the least. What is to become of the good ‘ole U.S. of A.?

The Supreme Court, as a result of its inaction to declare SB 8 unconstitutional, has caused this matter to spiral out-of-control. The Conservative Justices, by their own doing, are making this Court impotent.

The Constitution is a living document. The ‘Founding Fathers,’ the Men (no women) who wore the wigs, were actually forward thinking human beings. They purposefully drafted the Constitution to grow with our nation, not against it. They founded this country to not be ruled by the absolute power of one ruler; they wanted to spread power among different ‘branches’ of government for ‘checks and balances;’ and they wanted to separate Church and State.

The Supreme Court is a separate and distinct arm of government. It should unequivocally not be political. In modern times, it should rise above all the bullshit that occurs in Washington and this Country.

Thank you. I rest my case.