Posted on 07/07/2015 4:34:43 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
When President Obama was first running for office in 2008, he promised that he'd go about "fundamentally transforming" America once in office. But it wasn't the 47-year-old Senator from Illinois — who went on to win two presidential elections — who'd bring about such a transformation. It was a 78-year-old unelected Supreme Court justice from California named Anthony Kennedy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
I don’t see “right to dignity” in the constitution.
That's what they're saying.
You're not looking close enough.
It's right there next to "Right to kill my baby" and "Right to homosexual "marriage"...
the good part about the “right to dignity” is that it is so well-defined, unless useless platitudes which begin with “Congress shall make no law”....
It’s a shame but the evil deviants will justify anything evil! Because God said to hold on to what is good and doesn’t mean homosexuality and being pro-death!
Liberals would love to get rid of the First Amendment which would then make disagreement with them, i.e., not allowing the expression of their identity, unconstitutional. Kennedy’s decision is the first step as it will be used as precedent for trumping the First Amendment. Get used to it - thought crimes will become more and more common
I partly earned my dignity by scrubbing $hitters for a living.
Its not a right.
How about a right to religious dignity? How come gays and other anti-civilization misfits are supposed to get all the dignity and rights? Add illegal aliens to this. How come their “rights” trump those of American citizens to have a nation with real borders and a wage scale that is decent? They just bring down wages. They do better than living in Mexico or Guatemalan while the existing native and legal immigrant population does worse.
Besides there being nothing in the Constitution about a right to dignity, I can’t take seriously a right to dignity for men who parade all-but-naked in public streets while dressed like perverted clowns.
If the Supreme Court says the constitution says it then where is the recourse for anyone with less than $9 bil
Btw everyone does this: they say that the elections and the state of our country is all about fair wages or economic opportunity.
It’s not. It’s about the elected protecting and defending the constitution
They’re already doing it de facto ( people getting fired for thoughtcrimes when they express disagreement with the sodomite agenda, Christians being sued for disagreeing, Christians having had prayer and God thrown out of school decades ago to make way for taxpayers’ children to be indoctrinated with the sodomite agenda, etc). This is the way they work. they just keep chipping away by doing things and getting away with them, until it’s all but law in the land, and then they make it de jure. Just like they just did with sodomite “marriage”. They don’t know it and wouldn’t believe it if you told them, but they have just done the thing which has removed God’s blessing and protection from this country, and brought His judgement upon it. Because of all sins, open and proud sodomy and societal acceptance of it gives us over to a reprobate mind as a nation, and gives us over to our own rebellion against God.
Justices are way too isolated from reality. They need to get out and about more, especially Kennedy.
It’s hidden by the penumbra of the emanations.
The problem is that liberal judges are outcome determinative judges. They reach their solution and then do a sham of legal reasoning to reach that answer. Conservative judges tend to follow law and precedent and are thus hamstrung.
With their heads jammed up their keisters, the traitorous SCOTUS-5 claim they can see the "right to dignity" right in front of their eyes.
It's written in Uncle Tony's Invisible Ink
“You’re not looking close enough.
It’s right there next to “Right to kill my baby” and “Right to homosexual “marriage”...”
The right to die with dignity is coming. By 2025 the insatiable and growing appetite of the centrally administered welfare state will require massive confiscation of wealth on a scale unimaginable even today. There will be too few productive citizens in a shrinking economy to support the unproductive. Faced with the choice of cutting welfare benefits for the young masses or eliminating the white, conservative elderly retirees the government will choose the latter, using government managed healthcare as the tool.
From the government’s perspective premature end of life for the elderly reduces costs, and increases revenues revenue as follows:
1) No social security to pay
2) No Medicare and Medicare expenses
3) Life savings can be confiscated through inheritance taxes
Zeke Emmanuel talking about ending life at age 75 was intentional. Over the next ten years we will hear more talk from the left about “dying with dignity”. There will be a push to permit euthanasia in all states and include covering the cost as a health care benefit. There will be push to raise inheritance taxes over a certain threshold to 100% due to “fairness”. Then we will begin to hear about the duty of the elderly to the planet and society. The elderly are unproductive and consuming resources. They negatively impact climate change. They should “voluntarily” take advantage of euthanasia benefits to reduce the impact of human beings on the planet.
By 2030, the sight of someone over 75 years of age will be rare in the USA.
Right to dignity = my right not to be offended trumps all your rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.