The Supreme Court barred enforcement of a Louisiana law called Act 620 or the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act on a five to four vote Thursday night.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the high court’s liberal bloc to prohibit the law’s implementation over the dissent of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch noted their dissent but did not join the Kavanaugh opinion. The act was scheduled to take effect on Friday.

The Louisiana measure provides that physicians who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Abortion advocates say the law is identical to a Texas regulation which the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 in a case called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 8.34.58 PM.png (829x317, 489.51K)

Attached: F93C7570-0598-49B2-93B6-9EE047FFD1C8.jpeg (600x484, 32.71K)

Stick to the weed, vidya and porn. Leave the politics to the adults.

Attached: 5886a4b72836544022be9bbb3de46f8b9b7e6c1b79d1b276cac21b9ef4140e05.jpg (450x403, 20.37K)


Kav worked out well for conservatives eh?

Your first post was a strawman of conservative values you tard

Didn't think you were that retarded.

FWIW Roberts reversed himself from the Whole Woman case to preserve the court's image as a final arbiter rather than a weather vane moving as the political winds blow. The jerks here are the fifth circuit appeals judges who ignored a SC precedent on which the ink was barely dry to give Kavanaugh his shot.

Actually, the republic just defined the issue and chose to shit on your kind. You got sovereigned right is the pussy.

All you need is a closet with coat hangers fucking bigots.


Just wait until the Ginsburg scandal erupts. ;)

first post jew post

What if its a black mans baby who knocked up a pure scandanavian woman who allowed herself to be harvested by the african because the jews tauught her to via the media?


So no abortion or yes?

Yup. Think what you will about Roberts, but his whole "thing" is SC consistency. And since that's exactly what the SC should be, that is good.

let them do it tbh

i should also add that if a roastie aborts its fetus then it puts itself at risk of death in a worst-case scenario

Roberts has always been a liberal. Remember he also sided with them on Obamacare.

Liberal justices

Constitutionalist justices

Judges dont have parties

Funny, because theses "women" almost never pay for their abortions themselves.

Shut the fuck up, Stephen.

why can't we just keep abortion laws that make fewer niggers?

No you



But it is…

Taxation is by definition a loss of liberty. U don't see anyone arguing that it isn't.

My computer is currently targeted.
Openly I say. This is their Last hoorah if they are targeting small cogs in the clock like me.
They are afraid. and if You are a fed.. Protect and defend freedom as You have swarn to do.

it won't, they will keep pushing her copse around like its weekend at bernies till trump is out of office.

Attached: 883904301646.jpg (1197x1500, 452.05K)

Yes they do, quit fooling yourself. In fact it's beyond party, they have political ideologies that only fall into two camps: liberal activism vs originalist constitutionalism.

no, because i'd rather have faggots eliminated, and understand that evolution proove that races are not equal, subhuman mongrel leftist.
reminder that science is not on your side, and that's why you go for low hanging fruits, despite them still being above you.

You mean neocon activists and neutral

Christ, I don't think President Trump is THAT dumb.

No, but his supporters certainly are

Attached: DzCySJGW0AAv0fz.jpg (565x560, 30.16K)

Legal abortion is essentially legal self-genocide for niggers and soyim. Abortion doesn't affect you because you don't associate with those who would do it. Aborting tards is ok though.

You forgot to mention the thots

you're right. the inseminating man should. that'll learn you to wear a condom for once instead of pozzing

Neocons can't exist on the court, because neocon is a policy position, not an ideology.

And yet, even they were smart enough not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Pretty sure anything can exist on the court as idealogy drives policy.

Also Constitutionalism is the notion that if it isnt explicitly covered in the document, its the states or congresses place to create law. Fair enough…but so weird you see Obamacare, a law based in actual law as agreed by the House and Senate and signed by the president while utilizing the discretion those branches have over regulation and taxes…BEING DISPUTED AND VOTED AGAINST BY RIGHT WING JUDGES. Its literally like they lie about their standard only when it feeds their political idealogy! Just like you! Its so crae crae! 2 faced Republicans cucks.

Attached: A835CF8F-1152-4A1A-BBF1-BBB1309E7CAD.jpeg (480x611, 166.6K)

Which way did Ginsburg vote?

Attached: ruthless.jpg (1280x720, 97.59K)

Yes, that's what I said, but that's why policy positions like neoconservatism do not exist on the court. Furthermore, the court does not make policy. There's only two ideologies for the court

Roberts and Kavanaugh believe in the latter, along with Kagan, Sotormayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

It was Roberts who decided that Obamacare is constitutional because it would be considered a tax. The problem is Obama and Congress claimed it was not a tax at all.

Are you a faggot or a woman?


“Neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition.”

Money is speech, elections can be bought, religious organizations profit or not are exempt from standard employment laws, choosing a Republican Neoconservative president circumventing a true election…right, totally dont see any relationship there between the courts and Neoconservatism.

This is nonsense. It would mean that, for starters, the Second Amendment would only guarantee your right to form a militia, not own guns, and said guns would only be single-shot muskets anyway. Also your freedom of speech would not extend to the Internet because the Fathers could not have conceived of it. And if you weren't born in a wealthy family, you wouldn't be able to own land or really anything; you'd be a slave (except if you're white they'll call it "indentured servitude").

The Constitution is vague as all hell. It's required interpretation from the very beginning, and from the very beginning the SC has been "interpreting" it to push their agendas. It's only very recently, however, that those agendas have (sometimes) turned progressive.

bump. this thread was just getting interesting.

I disagree, I think gun ownership,was not the intent of the rule it was the ability for states to defend themselves.

They can't abort your offspring if you never reproduce

Attached: a42r1.jpg (235x201, 6.7K)

Abortion kills more black babies and hispanic babies than white babies. Keep that in mind guys.

Attached: 57706206a5a11f8f48064d32c1a3be43fd47fe83e3febdf2d861315794b6fe7f.jpg (1000x745, 43.83K)

Do you support killing white babies?

A fetus is not a baby

Only for the one pregnant