But if you are a baker...
The is just so much BS. The courts no longer rule according to the law, but rather just use whatever tidbits they can find to justify their personal politics.
If the SC won't even look at a case .....
I can't imagine the daily life of a SC judge, if normal people think one thing (by concensus or overwhelming percentage) but a SC judge doesn't see it nor consider it as a subject to even discuss amongst itself ......................
I was going to say that this conflicts with the 5th Circuit ruling on Texas’ similar law.
But, the Texas law requires that a sonogram be taken and “made available” to the mother. The doctor is not required to “describe” the baby.
So, I guess that is why they won’t take up this case.
Regarding the constitutionally baseless idea of “absolute” free speech, please consider the following. When the Founding States amended the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, they decided that the states did not have to respect those rights. Only the federal government was obligated to respect constitutionally enumerated rights. So such rights were never intended to be absolute like most citizens and evidently activist justices have been indoctrinated to think today.
In fact, using 1st Amendment-protected rights as an example, Thomas Jefferson had written that the Founding States had reserved government power to regulate our constitutionally protected uniquely to the states, regardless that they had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …” — Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was ratified that the states obligated themselves to respect the privileges and immunities expressly protected by the Constitution.
H O W E V E R …
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified that the 14th Amendment did not take away states’s rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So regardless what activist justices want us to think about “absolute” free speech for example, the states still have government power to regulate our basic constitutional freedoms as Jefferson had indicated, such power now limited by the 14th Amendment.
In fact, Justice Reed had indicated that it is the job of judges to balance 10th Amendment-protected state powers with 14th Amendment-protected personal rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
The reason that activist justices are now unthinkingly treating our constitutional rights as absolute is the following. Corrupt, institutionally indoctrinated justices are following in the footsteps of FDR’s activist justices by trying to destroy state sovereignty imo.
Finally, let’s consider the 17th Amendment in the context of the Court’s misguided decision concerning ultrasound. In short, if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court today, likely justices who respect family values imo. And if such was the case then I’m inclined to think that the Supreme Court would at least have decided to hear the case.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and activist justices along with it.