A better argument might have been a 1st amendment one, Art1 Sect 8 should have limited all this, because abortion is not an enumerated power, or part of the Federal responsibility, it is a medical procedure that is an individual choice. Right or wrong, the state should not be allowed to endorse or prohibit it. Let the churches and social geniuses argue it out.

Yes, and it has worked for 40 years, that is why they are all freaked out, as no good SCOTUS judge will agree.

The problem is when the Federal level of manipulation moves to the state level. Example: Oregon has no sales tax, Washington does, yet a WA resident has to pay income tax on income earned in Oregon, but a OR resident can be exempt from sales tax if they show their Oregon ID. Yet both states have huge populations of Liberals who vote as a block and have condemned the state to constant Demcrats who tax, tax tax, and all to feed that same block their PERS money, making all the rest of the state irrelevant. There is no competition between states at that point when it is single party rule, and 3 states worth of non Liberals cannot up and move. The Left coast is essentially the same place, same problems, same causes. Same for the East coast. Federal could be scaled back tremendously, but you will still have the same problems, until you can address the "block issue" and it usually revolves around the outrageous retirement plans and the fact the Democrats use that as bait and blackmail to keep one party rule. The idiots who vote for them care only for their drug (money) habit, like a colony of heroin addicts being asked to go straight, they would and do reject the notion. So, we keep feeding their habit year after year, and their corruption goes on. AKA in the South America model of government. Gangs are next...

Indeed so.

Exactly, and neither of our corrupt parties will cut themselves off at the knees for that reason, they need the weapon. For politics, not the Constitution.

If she really means it, she should put her money where her mouth is by resigning.

She is also incompetent for not understanding that the case turns on the First Amendment because the choice to donate, or not donate, to political campaigns is an INDIVIDUAL right. The Court was wrong to make it a group right in 1934 (even under FDR's threat to pack the Court), and I'm very glad to have lived to see it corrected.

Now we need a constitutional amendment setting a fixed number of seats on the Court, so no president can ever threaten to pack it again.

Take Kegan's dissent, modify slightly, roll back 160 years and substitute slavery for mandated labor union fees. You have the same arguments made by southern slave owners: Anti-slavery actions overrule citizen choices, are not accommodating for less stringent local and state laws sought to resolve the issue, "...does so even though the government services affected—policing, firefighting, teaching, transportation, sanitation (and more)—affect the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans." What an idiot.

Kagan's dissent is really no different (in mindset) from the original Roe vs. Wade decision's logic. I admit I've not actually read the entire text of Roe v. Wade, but I have read that the decision (that a woman has a "constitutional right" to an abortion) was justified by asserting that this fictitious "right" was based on "privacy" that was implied in the constitution, and the phrase they used was that the abortion right was right there, in the "penumbra" of rights. As any student of physics (optics) knows, a "penumbra" is just a fancy three-syllable word that means "in the gray area" (the actual meaning has to do with the "gray" shadow cast behind an object by a distributed light source, not a point-source; there is a partial shadow cast where only part of the light source is obscured). So, by using the "big intellectual" word (penumbra), they tried to obfuscate the fact that there really is no "right to abortion" in the constitution. But because they WANTED there to be one, they just "read in between the lines" and "inferred" that there was a "gray area" that they could "interpret" to mean anything they wanted. Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism at its worst. Kagan is no different - the facts be damned, she will "decide" issues based on her pointy-headed, leftist ideology and not on the actual constitution.

Kagan sounds like a dingbat. That aside, the title here grabbed my attention. Just yesterday a coworker asked me what I thought about a new justice being appointed w Kennedy's retirement. I said, "Well, it's just another example of a new person in a costume that a majority of people are eager to comply with." Does it matter? Sure, I guess so. But, when you're going to go Galt it's almost a positive. My colleague asked me who might be appointed. "Dennis Rodman" (much laughter from my office mates...)

Yes. The one positive was that because he ruled by Executive Order, those can just as easily be undone. His SCOTUS picks were truly awful, however. Though I disagreed with the Merrick Garland pick from an ideological standpoint, Garland was far more capable as a jurist than either of these two.

Is there any way to impeach a justice for being illogical?

Obama gift that just keeps giving :-(

The more outrageous the lie, the easier it is to believe it. I've heard that from psychologists often. The more sensational the claim, the more people tend to at least say "Wait. What?" It's a common practice for liberals of any stripe to state as fact (without any proof) things like "The vast majority of the American people are in favor of . . ." insert the latest liberal tripe. Some even go so far as to state a fabricated percentage (97% being the favorite) as though that garners their statements more credibility.

Clearing out the polititalk, and doublespeak, what it boils down to is this; in much simpler terms; A person is compelled by law to buy a product he/she doesn't want. Using the money from the sale of that product, the seller engages in politics that doesn't represent that person's beliefs. Kagan's diatribe seems to be saying, Hey, this has been in place for 40 years. Therefore it should be maintained.It's a variation of the majority is always right, ploy.

The case should not have turned on first amendment but Freedom of association and property rights. These people were being forced to associate with the union and robbed of their property. 1st amendment is a pretty weak argument....but what the heck, if it worked, so much the better.

states rights introduce a certain amount of competition into government, and are a good thing. the federal government could be scaled back to almost zero- leave it to the states to compete for citizens.

Kagan is just one of many Obamanations left behind to bob upon the murky slime of The Swamp.

Anyone who treats Kagan as a brilliant legal mind should be disbarred. She's a political/ideological hack without the ethics required to sit on the bench - as demonstrated by her refusal to recuse herself in cases she participated in as a government attorney. The only person less suited to sit on the Supreme Court is Sonia Sotomayor, who's ratings even by the ABA were dismal and hardly justifiable for someone to be sitting on the highest court in the land.

That's Independence Day, solver, not the name given by statists to hide the true significance of the date.

I do not see a more valuable dollar as a problem. The amount of dollar appreciation is trivial compared to the value the dollar once had vs other currencies. Please explain what you mean when you say the dollar will "implode" by going up in value. Implosion infers a decline in value to me. Wall St constantly puts out a load of bullshit (including their commentary on the dollar) as a cover story for their share price manipulations.

Something else to celebrate this Fourth of July!

I think SJWs should be virally known as Alternative Justice Warriors who practice alt-justice. It matches alt-left, which if the left had enough sense, would not condone the practices of these alt-left groups.

They move to places where they are welcomed by others of their kind. Houston, Dallas, and Austin all voted for Hitlery. Texas cities are little different from other cities in the US. They have been co-opted by the public school system, not by former Kalifornians. Of all the big cities in the US, only about 10% of them voted for Trump. 90% voted for Hitlery. (More and more women in high local and state government positions has hastened the shift to socialism more than emigration from CA.)
I agree, it will take a lot of work to restore the sanity of the American electorate after 50 years of teachers who have lied and been propaganda mouthpieces for socialism.

Yes, it does spread like cancer, as freedom says...

Definitely, I believe they see themselves as the true SJW of the free world, which just adds to the disgust level.