If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.