I refer to the fact that, however beautifully typeset the document is, the substance of the document is abhorrent and objectionable. So: a beautifully presented piece of horrific fucking shit.

I'm not American either (thank goodness).

That doesn't explain anything. Why is it so abhorrent and objectionable?

I can't fathom the idea that you don't know what the person you're replying to is trying to say. I think the more likely scenario is that you disagree and are trying to invite debate. If you want to do, feel free, it's no worse a derail than the entire thread is, but let's dispense with the coy tedium.

It's the ruling that rolls back roe vs Wade, the old ruling that forced all states to allow abortion. Unless you're living under a rock, I'm sure you've heard of this, perhaps not by the name of the ruling though. (I'm not American btw)

The outrage is two-fold. First, this is removing a right that used to be guaranteed for 50 years and had been reaffirmed, by the Supreme Court. With the stroke of a pen, 6 judges removed a protection that more than 2/3 of citizens support.

Second, the justification is inconsistent with other decisions. E.g., the majority argues that it's up to the States to decide their own laws on the matter of abortion, but just the day before, the same majority found that New York could not decide its own laws on concealed carry. You mention that searching for "abortion" in the text of the U.S. Constitution find nothing: you'll also find nothing about concealed carry.

>The outrage is two-fold. First, this is removing a right that used to be guaranteed for 50 years and had been reaffirmed, by the Supreme Court. With the stroke of a pen, 6 judges removed a protection that more than 2/3 of citizens support.

I can certainly empathize, but but isn't it dangerous to leave it to whatever the opinions of the sitting judges may be instead of codifying it in law? You never know if the next thing they pull out of thin air is going to be in your favor, and there's nothing you can do about it as a voter, SCOTUS judges being appointed and not elected.

Of course in the US a popular majority isn't enough to pass federal law, as seen with Women's Health Protection Act, which failed to pass in the senate. Maybe the only way to get a federal law guaranteeing access to abortion would be to send an angry mob to burn down the senate and declare congress unicameral. But then a lot of states would probably just secede, make their own abortion laws anyway, and you'd be right back where you started. Maybe the least bad solution for the United States is to just accept that different states have different views on a lot of issues.

>Second, the justification is inconsistent with other decisions. E.g., the majority argues that it's up to the States to decide their own laws on the matter of abortion, but just the day before, the same majority found that New York could not decide its own laws on concealed carry.

Yes, inconsistency is precisely why you shouldn't have any of these non-Ctrl-F-able supreme court decisions in the first place, including Roe v. Wade. Although with the concealed carry decision there might be another explanation. I agree that concealed carry is by no means necessary for people to defend themselves, and should therefore not in itself protected by the constitution. But can you get away with open carry everywhere in the state of New York? Say you were to walk around Times Square with your six shooter in your cowboy holster, what would happen? It's possible that states that restrict open carry would have to as a concession allow concealed carry in order to not violate the 2nd amendment. That is you can only ban one or the other, but never both at the same time.

Interesting take. the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects the right to “bear” (i.e. carry) arms…

Bear, but not concealed. If you ask me I think I have the right to know when someone is armed. I think the problem here is that New York allows neither, and the SCOTUS is asking them to pick one or the other.