McDonald v. Chicago, how it can effect a woman's right to choose.

[virginia mountainman]

Chicago is vigorously defending its near total handgun ban. If they win, this can have very bad far reaching implications for other civil rights.

Why are progressives standing with the National Rifle Association in the biggest gun rights case of the year? Because some believe it's an opportunity to thaw a cryogenically frozen clause in the Constitution that might add a crucial tool to the arsenal of advocates for civil liberties and individual rights.

The right to privacy, which protects reproductive freedom, has historically been protected from state action by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, directed at protecting people's "life, liberty, or property." Critics of reproductive rights argue that being deprived of contraception or abortion, for instance, generally do not endanger a woman's life, liberty, or property, and are thus undeserving of protection under the Due Process Clause.

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) may re-shape the way that individual liberties are legally defended against state interference

http://womensrights.change.org/blog?author_id=270

Even those of us, who hate guns, better take heed, the stakes are very high with this case, for all of us.

[damntexdem]

1. What b.s.! Carrying a gun has nothing to do with privacy.

The very act is meant to have a public effect.

Gunnuts are trying to hijack support for choice to push their own dangerous agenda.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Good grief....

Did you even read the article??? Do you understand what is being said??

Don't you understand the long term implications of a decision AGAINST a civil right would have for other rights??

People like you make me want to vomit, your willing to jeopardize the whole Bill of Rights on account of your blind hatred for only one part of it. You seem incapable of understanding that if you allow ridiculous restrictions on PART of the bill of rights, don't cry to us, when others use those same arguments against the part of the bill of rights you DO care about.

[Chan790]

3. Personally...

I'm kind of thrilled about it.

I'm willing to give up the ghost on gun control if it completely invalidates the traditional "state's rights" argument that constructionists and conservatives use for everything. Literally, a ruling for McDonald could mean that there is no ground at all left for pro-lifers/religious-conservatives to stand on to challenge Roe v. Wade or any future striking-down of state gay-marriage bans. It takes their state-by-state incrementalist tactic for chipping away at civil rights off the table as well.

Personally, I can't wait to see which Republican constituency Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy are going to throw to the wolves: the gun-crazies or the every-fetus-is-sacred-crazies. That sound you hear? It's Republicans eating their own.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Yep!! Some people cannot see the bigger picture to save their lives. NT

[struggle4progress]

10. Don't expect principled consistency from the Court's rightwing: they'll vote cases

simply according to the conclusions they want.

[Chan790]

11. Yes, but this is a direct head-to-head...

they literally have to choose one party or the other as the central question is the limits of the 14th amendment. There is no ruling available to them that answers the question and doesn't crush a GOP constituency.

[Odin2005]

4. I see the anti-gun nutd are out.

Shitting on civil rights.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Yep NT

[Hepburn]

6. UnRec....

...what total horse manure.

[virginia mountainman]

7. How is it total horse manure? NT

[Taverner]

9. Yes - and if Chicago wins, this sets a precedent