The majority — including the Chief Justice — is simply following the law, as they always claim to do, whatever they are deciding. Kavanaugh was just one in that majority.He’s simply following the law, the nonsense is on capital hill, not across the street.
Then why the outcry from the Democrats when he was nominated? they said he would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. CNN's chief legal analyst Jeff Toobin said he would guarantee that he would overturn the abortion law. I hope he doesn't gamble. It was just scare tactics by the left. As much as the right uses scare tactics the left is just as guilty.The very basics that idiots like Trump thinks he can dictate. Kavanugh knew that he would look partisan if he sided with the Republicans on this issue. No Supreme Court with some iota of common sense would support the Republicans in this respect.
Clearly an opinion from a non-lawyer, who is not current with contemporary human-rights cases.I would love to see the case that said the law prohibiting the Muslim practice of FGM is unconstitutional make its way to the SCOTUS.
If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect).
Since this thread is about the U.S. Supreme Court, I was referring to a recent case in the U.S. that ruled a ban on FGM is unconstitutional and one of the reasons for judgment was "religious freedom".Google is your friend. You might note the Ontario HRC's paper on the legalities mentions the several opinions against FGM written by former Chief Justice Dickson, and that Ontario police services have been specifically instructed that the practice is a criminal matter.
It was plain what the case was about: First let’s talk about what Monday’s decision was about—and what it was not about. The decision was about who can sue to enforce Medicaid benefits. The decision was not about the merits of conservative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. This difference matters and that was what Toobin is still standing by.Then why the outcry from the Democrats when he was nominated? they said he would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. CNN's chief legal analyst Jeff Toobin said he would guarantee that he would overturn the abortion law. I hope he doesn't gamble. It was just scare tactics by the left. As much as the right uses scare tactics the left is just as guilty.
Aahh! Damn your auto-complete for adding:Since this thread is about the U.S. Supreme Court, I was referring to a recent case in the U.S. that ruled a ban on FGM is unconstitutional and one of the reasons for judgment was "religious freedom".
It was that over-stretch without evidence that inspired my reference to Canada's less partisan, less prejudiced approach.Darts said:If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect).
It was a "technical" ruling. The District Court held that that it was an overstretch by Congress to believe that they had the power to legislate in this area under the "Necessary and Proper" and "Commerce" Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. That FGM is a “’local criminal activity’ which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and [the] federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress.”I would love to see the case that said the law prohibiting the Muslim practice of FGM is unconstitutional make its way to the SCOTUS.
If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect).
Question: Has the "ban" on FGM ever been tested in a Canadian court of competent jurisdiction?You might note the Ontario HRC's paper on the legalities mentions the several opinions against FGM written by former Chief Justice Dickson, and that Ontario police services have been specifically instructed that the practice is a criminal matter.
Not that the last has any relevance at all to their summary of the legal situation that exists here. You're the one fantasizing about what you imagine would happen here if someone was charged for FGM. Why don't you do your own Googling?Question: Has the "ban" on FGM ever been tested in a Canadian court of competent jurisdiction?
BTW: The Ontario HRC is an unelected tribunal that loves to stand on a soapbox and preach to the unwashed masses and not a real court of competent jurisdiction.
Nothing of the sort has been confirmed. That 'test' is your fantasy, you show us an FGM ban would fail/has failed if you want to be taken seriously. Don't be afraid of Google.Ok, thanks for confirming that the Canadian ban on FGM has not been tested in a court of competent jurisdiction. (No, the OHRC is not a real court of competent jurisdiction. Just a bunch of lefties preaching to the unwashed masses.)