Reply #15: "Violating women's reproductive rights"?

[-..__...]

Are you suggesting/hinting that '"womans reproductive rights" outweigh the Right To Keep and Bear Arms?

Do you know of any potential nominees that support womans reproductive rights who isn't also an advocate for violating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<30> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<31>


Majority by: Scalia
Joined by: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent by: Stevens
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent by: Breyer
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found... whereas the wording of the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to the majority of Americans and at least 5 sitting SCOTUS justices.


Ideally, we would have a SCOTUS that respected the entire BOR; that would include the RKBA, womans reproductive rights and the right to be protected against the taking of land for personal gain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)<1>, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment


Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Kennedy

Dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas

Damn!

Wot an AMAZING coincidence!!!

(but hardly any surprise).