Do you want your rights coming from the people through your elected officials or through nine non elected judges?

[Pterodon]

Elected officials

Non elected judges

[Stoner710]

I want my right to come from what is in the constitution. If it’s not in the constitution the issue of the day is, Example I support legal weed the constitution doesn’t say anything about the a right to smoke weed. Therefore legal marijuana is left up for the states to decide. The Supreme Court can’t magically say I have a legal right to marijuana because the constitution says nothing about it say with abortion or even gay marriage or contraception or the right to sodomy therefore it’s not up for the court to make up laws out of whole cloth saying the states don’t have a right to do as they will with these issues SCOTUS can’t do that, that is legislating from the bench in Hamilton said if they did that they would lose their reason for being and should be abolished forthwith All the court did here was say we don’t have a right to decide for the entire country on how the states what to deal with the abortion issue. So now the states can vote on the issue rather then the Supreme Court mandating every state has legal abortion. That is not there job there job as you interpret the constitution as it was written when it was written the 14th amendment was passed in 1866 there would be no legal protection in 1866 for abortion therefore the 14th amendment does not protect the abortion rights the ninth amendment protects the states rights to vote on the issue of abortion not the federal government

[BillyBalls]

Given the state of politicians this isn't a good choice.

Scotus and lower courts are supposed to apply the law as it pertains to the case the court is reviewing. Personal politics should not be involved in the ruling.

No Scotus ruling be 5-4 based on party affiliation no matter what the case is.

[Pterodon]

All the SCOTUS does is declare if a law is constitutional or not

[BillyBalls]

@Pterodon That is my point.

Given what the Constitution says and the case the court is reviewing, there should be no 5-4 split decisions.

[Pterodon]

But there is because of interpretation

[BillyBalls]

Interpretation should not be influenced by ones' political leanings

[Pterodon]

I agree

[Agape93]

Elected officials of those two choices. But frankly my rights come from my free agency, I don't give a fuck what any government says.

[OlderAndWiser]

Both. Anyone with intelligence would understand why.

[andreasderjuengere]

I have been taught once about the
''Separation of Powers''
I refer your question to U. S. specific recent events:
I now saw that the 'executive' power is rated as if it's the 'legislative' one.
Which isn't perfectly accurate, as CHANGING a law is still not in the hands of ''courts''.
At least, that's how I understand it.
What I do understand: there is little ''United'' in the ''States of A." :)

[dragoblack]

Even elected officials are not chosen by the people. They are chosen by the politically influential and the rich through the GOP and the DNC leaders, all other option are strong armed and the political votes of the people are put in the trash, only giving the people the illusion of making the people vote actually count

[AviatorTom]

Neither. Rights are intrinsic and come from no one. Government may establish privileges but they are not rights.

[exitseven]

In the case of abortion the rights will come from locally elected state legislators.

[Anonymous]

The most sensible thing would be to rely on billionaires quietly manipulating opinion on Twitter, right?

[BillyBalls]

Or at the Washington Post which is owned by the same billionaire that owns Amazon.

[bootieclapper9000]

fake lol