Here in Australia, ironically kangaroo that gets slaughtered and run over by vehicles on freeways also makes a symbolic appearance on the coat of arms.
Judge Alito needs to read the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...". No "person" be they embryo, fetus, infant, child, or adult, has the right to another persons organs, tissue, blood, etc. etc. Even after death we honor this personal bodily sovereignty. Perfectly good organs get put into the ground or crematorium as others in need expire simply because there was no consent to donate. I see no difference between this and the needs of a pre-viable fetus. The end of the second trimester has been an adequate place of compromise in Roe for decades. Alito's claim that "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision..." is shocking and absurd. Of course it does. I would be shocked to find out that the 4th amendment is not as he puts it "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions". I'd be interested to hear opinions from people with more legal experience on this issue. But to me I cannot understand how this is still an ongoing controversy. It's a simple matter of bodily sovereignty and consent. The amount of emotional outrage and judgement towards people that make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy is overblown and quite frankly ridiculous. Its none of anyone else's business. Don't want an abortion don't get one. And if you don't have a uterus you don't get a say in how one is used (or not used). The problem here is expectations. The hope that a fetus will become a child one day. This is further entangled when religious beliefs become involved. But we are free to choose those for ourselves as well according to the US constitution. Hope for future children is all well and good, but you don't get to go around ordering other people to plant seeds on their land in the hopes of feeding people in the future nor do you get to tell someone that they must complete a pregnancy that they do not consent to either. The lack of understanding of this basic principle by Supreme Court justices is shocking.
The idea that the original democratic intent of the people was to give a broad right to abortion is beyond idiotic If they intended the 4th to give an abortion right then why did the same people that ratified the 4th then go ahead and democratically elect representatives to make laws outlawing abortion?
You take a long time to tell us how YOU think amendments should be read. Strangely enough you make no demand for the legislature to create laws that align with your views. The Constitution is not keeping you from lobbying your neighbors and getting your legislature to pass a law with which a majority agree. What's at issue here, as is evidenced by your novella, is that you support legislation from the bench. Thankfully, SCOTUS has move away from being the Sage Arbiters of All That Should Be. The Constitution is a binder on the government, not a vessel in which you pour your hopes and dreams. Call your state legislator.
Rather, it's the Constitution which says what the " right thing " is, and by implication what is contrary to it. A matter of interpretation when it comes to judging the effect of a law. The Congress takes decisions and once the latter have been made into laws (signed by the head of the Executive branch) the Nation has to abide by them. Any unconstitutional move will be struck down by the Supreme Court. Right, or its opposite, wrong, do not mean good, or bad, but constitutional, or unconstitutional. It has to do with the juridical (laws) not the ethical (morality)
@@jccherica9059 Both the legislature and judiciary may incorporate normative standards, just in different ways. Congress is *supposed* to make rules that are just but it frequently makes unjust laws. The Courts simply need to interpret and apply the law, whether that particular application leads to justice or not. The "right" thing to do is to faithfully apply the law. They have an extra tool after Marbury v Madison, which allowed them to strike down laws but only under the most special circumstances.
Doctor Patient Confidentiality no longer exists! Attorney Client Confidentiality no longer exists. The US Government Corporation records everything you say to your doctor and attorney, or while you are in the hospital, and your conversations can and will be used against you in a court of law. All Medical tests, blood tests, pregnancy tests, and etc. can and will be used against you in a court of law. Doctors no longer make the decisions with you on what medical treatments, or medications, are best for you. The US Government Corporation now tells your doctors what treatments you can have and what medications you can have. If your doctor or attorney does not inform you of these changes in your rights you can sue for fraud, entrapment, and possibly conspiracy. The US Supreme Court sold you out!!! You lost your right to privacy when they overturned Roe vs Wade. Your church leaders also sold you out!!n By not informing you that you'd lose your right to privacy if Roe vs Wade was overturned.
![TREASURE - 'KING KONG' COMEBACK SPECIAL [THE TREASURE SHOW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jx1wyMaQzf0/mqdefault.jpg)
Nice to see his sense of humour coming through.
Here in Australia, ironically kangaroo that gets slaughtered and run over by vehicles on freeways also makes a symbolic appearance on the coat of arms.
One of the best of all time
Thank you🙏 for your support
Judge Alito needs to read the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...". No "person" be they embryo, fetus, infant, child, or adult, has the right to another persons organs, tissue, blood, etc. etc. Even after death we honor this personal bodily sovereignty. Perfectly good organs get put into the ground or crematorium as others in need expire simply because there was no consent to donate. I see no difference between this and the needs of a pre-viable fetus.
The end of the second trimester has been an adequate place of compromise in Roe for decades. Alito's claim that "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision..." is shocking and absurd. Of course it does. I would be shocked to find out that the 4th amendment is not as he puts it "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions". I'd be interested to hear opinions from people with more legal experience on this issue. But to me I cannot understand how this is still an ongoing controversy. It's a simple matter of bodily sovereignty and consent.
The amount of emotional outrage and judgement towards people that make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy is overblown and quite frankly ridiculous. Its none of anyone else's business. Don't want an abortion don't get one. And if you don't have a uterus you don't get a say in how one is used (or not used). The problem here is expectations. The hope that a fetus will become a child one day. This is further entangled when religious beliefs become involved. But we are free to choose those for ourselves as well according to the US constitution. Hope for future children is all well and good, but you don't get to go around ordering other people to plant seeds on their land in the hopes of feeding people in the future nor do you get to tell someone that they must complete a pregnancy that they do not consent to either. The lack of understanding of this basic principle by Supreme Court justices is shocking.
The idea that the original democratic intent of the people was to give a broad right to abortion is beyond idiotic
If they intended the 4th to give an abortion right then why did the same people that ratified the 4th then go ahead and democratically elect representatives to make laws outlawing abortion?
The law doesnt matter. He just legislates by judiciary.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion.
Exactly well said. These people need to understand this.
You take a long time to tell us how YOU think amendments should be read. Strangely enough you make no demand for the legislature to create laws that align with your views. The Constitution is not keeping you from lobbying your neighbors and getting your legislature to pass a law with which a majority agree. What's at issue here, as is evidenced by your novella, is that you support legislation from the bench. Thankfully, SCOTUS has move away from being the Sage Arbiters of All That Should Be. The Constitution is a binder on the government, not a vessel in which you pour your hopes and dreams. Call your state legislator.
I agree with the last comment.
The justices aren't concerned with "the right thing." That's up to Congress.
Rather, it's the Constitution which says what the " right thing " is, and by implication what is contrary to it. A matter of interpretation when it comes to judging the effect of a law. The Congress takes decisions and once the latter have been made into laws (signed by the head of the Executive branch) the Nation has to abide by them. Any unconstitutional move will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Right, or its opposite, wrong, do not mean good, or bad, but constitutional, or unconstitutional. It has to do with the juridical (laws) not the ethical (morality)
@@jccherica9059 Both the legislature and judiciary may incorporate normative standards, just in different ways. Congress is *supposed* to make rules that are just but it frequently makes unjust laws. The Courts simply need to interpret and apply the law, whether that particular application leads to justice or not. The "right" thing to do is to faithfully apply the law. They have an extra tool after Marbury v Madison, which allowed them to strike down laws but only under the most special circumstances.
This segment should be called - How Alito destroyed the credibility of SCOTUS.
Kl*
Sooo much Respect for Justice Alito!!! Fantastic Supreme court Justice!!!
Alito is a great SCOTUS
Doctor Patient Confidentiality no longer exists! Attorney Client Confidentiality no longer exists. The US Government Corporation records everything you say to your doctor and attorney, or while you are in the hospital, and your conversations can and will be used against you in a court of law. All Medical tests, blood tests, pregnancy tests, and etc. can and will be used against you in a court of law. Doctors no longer make the decisions with you on what medical treatments, or medications, are best for you. The US Government Corporation now tells your doctors what treatments you can have and what medications you can have.
If your doctor or attorney does not inform you of these changes in your rights you can sue for fraud, entrapment, and possibly conspiracy.
The US Supreme Court sold you out!!! You lost your right to privacy when they overturned Roe vs Wade.
Your church leaders also sold you out!!n By not informing you that you'd lose your right to privacy if Roe vs Wade was overturned.
Alito is the best justice on the Supreme Court.
I prefer Clarence Thomas, but Samuel Alito is a close second
@@Gaming_Network both are trash
@@Sup-ct1ls WOW!
No he's not..not even close
🤣🤣🤣
He just sold us all out..
Terrible justice
Alito is a jerk. Period.