• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's what "normal" looks like (as opposed to weird, creepy and disgusting)

Neue_Regel said:
And some will embrace the DEI hire who sucked her way up the ladder and the guy who thought boys needed tampoons in their bathroom. Everybody has their own cross to bear, I suppose. And then there's people like me who are fed up with war candidates and will look for an alternative.
Click to expand...
Gosh so edgy.
 
iamwhatiseem said:
Do they make the hair on your legs stand up?
What are you going to call your church?
Click to expand...
"Normal" these days just makes other normal people remember how totally weird and ****ed up your Republican Jesus is.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Installing?

She will be elected.
Click to expand...
She's already been installed as the Democrat nominee, I'm sure we'll agree. It remains to be seen if she'll win the election. I'm fearful people have their hopes way too high, tho.
 
Neue_Regel said:
She's already been installed as the Democrat nominee, I'm sure we'll agree. It remains to be seen if she'll win the election. I'm fearful people have their hopes way too high, tho.
Click to expand...
She was chosen by democratic voters to be VP, to replace Biden if he couldn't continue.

Biden will not continue. Harris will take over for him. Just as Democrats chose.
 
NolanVoyd said:
She was chosen by democratic voters to be VP, to replace Biden if he couldn't continue.

Biden will not continue. Harris will take over for him. Just as Democrats chose.
Click to expand...
She scares the shit outta MAGA.
 
Here's the opposite of normal. And more and more Americans realize it.



 
Taylor said:
There is nothing normal about Kamala. We have four years of her rambling and babbling about very weird shit to prove it.

This is nothing more than political projection - an attempt to get out in front of the fact that SHE is the weirdo.

This completely scripted and fake video is just adds to the cringe.
Click to expand...

The people who are supporting Kamala, Cameleon's lies about the reason Roe collapsed aren't the brightest bulbs.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Enlighten me.

How did Roe "collapse"
Click to expand...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicted why Roe v. Wade would eventually collapse and gave the reason why. She wasn't wrong.

Essentially, she opined that Roe v. Wade's standing based on the privacy issue, the foundation for the decision would not stand eventually collapsing. It should have been made by using the 14th amendment, a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution. The law would still be intact. Dobbs was the straw that broke the camel's back. It had nothing to do with the lie that Trump stacked the court with conservative judges. That's the lie that the Democrats want the voters to believe though.

www.newsweek.com

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Last edited:
The opposite of normal



 
This is not normal



 
The continuation of Post #143 https://lawreview.syr.edu/dobbs-v-j...-its-implications-on-substantive-due-process/
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: The Decision
Before the Court in Dobbs was a Mississippi law that prohibited abortion after fifteen (15) weeks (before viability), except if there was a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality, which violated Roe v. Wade. Therefore, the Court was able to use this case to reconsider the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe. In holding that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion, the Court overruled Roe. First, the Court held that the right to an abortion is not a fundamental right recognized by neither the Constitution, our Nation’s history and traditions, nor encapsulated by other, broader rights. Then, the Court concluded that traditional stare decisis (preserving the Court’s prior decisions) factors weigh against upholding Roe—namely, the nature of the Court’s error in Roe; the quality of the Court’s reasoning in Roe; the workability of the rule set forth in Roe; Roe’s effect on other areas of law; and the reliance interests on the Roe decision.
Click to expand...

The straw that broke the camel's back, which led to the inevitable collapse of Roe v. Wade.

Ofcourse, the Court’s decision in Dobbs is much more nuanced than the summary provided here. However, the aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe—Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions.
Click to expand...

The majority opinion in Dobbs, authored by Justice Alito, rejects the argument that these other precedents are at risk by the Dobbs decision. Justice Alito argues that abortion is fundamentally different than marriage, intimacy, or procreation because it deals with “potential life,” and therefore “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, states that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’…we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” The dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan offer a much more heightened concern for the fate of these precedents. The dissenting justices argue that the basis for overturning Roe—that “the right to elect an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history’”—can theoretically be applied to the use of contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and private intimacy.
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicted why Roe v. Wade would eventually collapse and gave the reason why. She wasn't wrong.

Essentially, she opined that Roe v. Wade's standing based on the privacy issue, the foundation for the decision would not stand eventually collapsing. It should have been made by using the 14th amendment, a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution. The law would still be intact. Dobbs was the straw that broke the camel's back. It had nothing to do with the lie that Trump stacked the court with conservative judges. That's the lie that the Democrats want the voters to believe though.

www.newsweek.com

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
It "collapsed" because the Republicans worked to make it collapse.


And now the Republicans will pay electorally.

You are finished.
 
Neue_Regel said:
Your overall point may be 100% valid but this has been debunked.
Click to expand...
It hasn't been debunked by John Kelly, until I hear it from his lips it stands. I suppose he didn't trash McCain either, or say that the medal of freedom is better than the medal of honor,
because you don't have to get killed or wounded to receive it. Face it, you are defending a despicable human being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom