I'm crying right now.

[Lursa]

Yes I elected not to "address" your nonsense.

Yeah....always a strong statement on a discussion forum ...where I was able to use your own comments against your points.

No worries...it's there for anyone to consider.

 

[Drawdown]

Yeah....always a strong statement on a discussion forum ...where I was able to use your own comments against your points.

No worries...it's there for anyone to consider.

No you created a strawman, named him Joe, and rubbed his hairy blonde legs

 

[Lursa]

No you created a strawman, named him Joe, and rubbed his hairy blonde legs

LMAO then you understood the comparisons even more poorly than I realized.

And they teach kids such comparisons in English class in grammar school. That's why mainstream media publications write to the 4th -6th grade level.

Oh well Again...everyone else can read them and consider for themselves.

 

[OscarLevant]

If you are talking about abortion, it is murder pure and simple. Why shouldnt the SC be against murder???

The penalty for murder is life imprisonment, or death, depending.

Are you willing to sentence a woman who aborts her fetus with life imprisonment, and the doctor, as well?

 

[Chomsky]

How naive, my friend. I love ya, but.... pay attention.

Meh. I think the judges generally try to provide good jurisprudence. Though I must admit Kavanaugh's WI decision smacks of political partisanship. He even had to go back and modify his opinion, due to others pointing-out his lack of support for his claims. I can't stand the weenie.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't agree with this assessment when it comes to every issue. There are issues that are coming to the Court or may come back to the Court where these votes will matter, including abortion, same sex marriage, and religion in our society (specifically Christianity and even some dealing with Muslims, just in very different ways, almost opposite). The good thing is that Roberts has generally been a good Justice. However, if these come up, I think that at least one if not all of the "new" Justices may end up overturning things that were decided on because of their feelings rather than holding precedent.

Two Supreme Court Justices call for a challenge to same-sex marriage, here's what we know

A rare dissent is causing some to question whether a more conservative Supreme Court will strike down same-sex marriage. Here's why some say it's still unlikely.

www.kare11.com

That might be possible. But to call it 'feelings', might be is disingenuous. I believe the justices generally act out of judicial philosophy & ideology.

Cases & precedent have been modified & overturned through-out the Court's history. Brown v Board is a perfect example.

 

[weaver2]

I think everyone is getting too worked-up over this. Pretty much every judge on the Court seems to do a pretty reasonable job. Those 'Republican' justices haven't delivered in the way everyone seems to think they would.
Though I will admit every now & then we do get a bad decision. Citizen United comes foremost to mind.

Have you been following the SC's decisions about corporations and finance lately? Have you read Barrett's decisions recently. Corporations will be supported every time, no matter the cost to society or how it hurts employees. She was not appointed to over turn Roe, that was just an added benefit. She was promoted and appointed by corporate leaders who bought up Senators thanks to Citizens United.

 

[roguenuke]

That might be possible. But to call it 'feelings', might be is disingenuous. I believe the justices generally act out of judicial philosophy & ideology.

Cases & precedent have been modified & overturned through-out the Court's history. Brown v Board is a perfect example.

It is feelings when it comes to things like overturning cases regarding gay rights/marriage or even abortion, not any sort of actual legal precedent or legal review, of guarantees regarding the Constitution. They make things up to justify why those rights should never have been recognized based on their feelings, not the Constitution. They live in a time when the United States is a country, not the United States are, whether they approve or not.

 

[Chomsky]

Have you been following the SC's decisions about corporations and finance lately? Have you read Barrett's decisions recently. Corporations will be supported every time, no matter the cost to society or how it hurts employees. She was not appointed to over turn Roe, that was just an added benefit. She was promoted and appointed by corporate leaders who bought up Senators thanks to Citizens United.

No, I haven't followed her corporate decisions. But, I'll make your case for you with Kavanaugh's recent WI decision. Right down to using Trump's phrases ...

 

[Chomsky]

It is feelings when it comes to things like overturning cases regarding gay rights/marriage or even abortion, not any sort of actual legal precedent or legal review, of guarantees regarding the Constitution. They make things up to justify why those rights should never have been recognized based on their feelings, not the Constitution. They live in a time when the United States is a country, not the United States are, whether they approve or not.

I don't see how you can make that claim, beyond voicing your opinion.

 

[roguenuke]

I don't see how you can make that claim, beyond voicing your opinion.

Because the Constitution is quite clear about when a person in the US is counted as a person, in both when citizenship is bestowed and even in relation to how the Census works. And when it comes to gay rights, there is no one harmed by their being together. No harm, means no legal standing to bring suit except for when laws against such couples are used against them. There is no legitimate state interest in laws regarding such actions, we know that they are based on mainly on religion and opinion, just as those laws against interracial relationships and marriages were. Even most conservative judges/Justices/lawmakers know this is true.

All legal arguments I've seen regarding either of these two subjects revolve around basically "well the states have rights" (not that supersede individual rights unless they have legitimate state interest) and "my religion opposes it, so having it legal violates religious rights" (which is a bullshit argument).