This is already a much bigger problem than this leak. Selective enforcement of drug laws is rife in the us. Are you also concerned about that?
Are you saying that the rule of law is already so degraded in other areas that further degrading it with this kind of action is of no consequence and therefore if it happens to advance what you consider to be a good policy then we should welcome it?
Like I said at the start: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
Beyond that, the law says the Supreme Court and legislature decides what is or isn't a violation of the separation of Church and State, not activists deciding for themselves what law should or should not be observed.
>>If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
There is a legal process for changing the law. What you are attempting to justify is undermining the rule of law with haphazard rationalizations.
Beyond that - the courts exist for a reason, because of the mandate given by society. When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts.
And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.
There are so many reasons why this is wrong.
Under the Constitution, the tenth amendment clearly reserves powers not expressly enumerated for the federal government, to the people and states, and the only exception to that is powers expressly denied by the Constitution to the states, which defining human life as beginning before birth is not one of them.
Moreover, defining human life as starting at a heartbeat or before birth can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatism denial notwithstanding.
>>You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the opinion was based on works of a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist.
This is just ad hominem / character assassination, and not relevant to this point.
>>When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts.
And you're arguing for fixing said courts through illegal acts. Like I said:
If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
>>And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.
Of course there is a way to fix the courts: legislation can dictate the jurisdiction of courts, and legislatures can appoint new justices to the court, and the legislature is democratically elected.
Of course the latter takes time, as Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, but that is the Constitutional process, and that can also be changed if a supermajority vote for a Constitutional amendment.
Your expressions of hatred and disgust toward those who through the Constitutionally legitimate process, became Supreme Court justices, is not a moral argument. It's just a manifestation of the moral superiority complex exhibited by those on the political left who support this subversion of the law.
Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious.
We put mothers and mostly fathers in prison for not providing child support. The latter never even had an option to abort their parental responsibilities the way mothers did during pregnancy. The idea that a non-religious argument against abortion can't exist in light of this is absurd.
>>Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious.
Like I said, believing abortion should be prohibited can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatic denial notwithstanding.
As for child support - again, nothing to do with bodily autonomy, because the same happens in other directions, for failing to support other family members one is required to, not just one’s children.
You still hadn’t managed to provide even a single secular reason to ban abortion. It’s not that they cannot exist - they perhaps could, but they don’t. “Prevailing legal norms” don’t matter, because they have been largely written to the tune of religious extremists; that’s where churches numerous privileges come from.