Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
FISHX said:we can only hope and praythat this bill is passed:smile: :
The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment XBlind man said:Yes, because we all know it's healthy for America when States take it as their responsiblity to violate the integrity of the American political system by intentionally spitting in the face of cases which have already been decided by the SCOTUS.
I always love it when people place their own personal agendas, whatever they may be, ahead of the principles and ideals upon which this country was founded.
Felicity said:The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Felicity said:The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Blind man said:lol, I forgot, the SCOTUS is only doing their job when they agree with you. There's well over a hundred years of the highest level of law knowledge and interpretation on the SCOTUS, but who needs that? Felicity is here. You can go home now Justices, your work is through.
Felicity said:The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Oh, yeah... what about the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Navy Pride said:The SCOTUS job is to interpret the Constitution and if there is a bad law like Roe V Wade change it......
Blind man said:Good thing that the Supreme Court hasn't had a chance to rule on the case before . . .
It'll give the ACLU something to do and let the State of Indiana pay the budget of ACLU. If that is something to hope and pray for, have at it.FISHX said:we can only hope and praythat this bill is passed:smile: :
Engimo said:rof
Judicial Review, anyone? Marbury vs. Madison? The job of the Supreme Court is to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and the States, how is making a ruling on Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional?
steen said:It'll give the ACLU something to do and let the State of Indiana pay the budget of ACLU. If that is something to hope and pray for, have at it.
Navy Pride said:because constituional scolars on both side have said its flawed..........Why do you think Liberals are fighting so hard to keep Conservatives off the bench?
Engimo said:Oh really? During the Alito confirmation hearings I remember hearing a senator say that there have been over 60 cases presented to the Supreme Court where they have had an opportunity to contradict/overturn Roe Vs. Wade. If it is so obviously flawed, why hasn't this happened yet?
blastula said:I don't see the 4th to be refering to privacy right to abortion.
Nowhere in Roe v Wade's testimony was any allegation made that Roe's person, houses, papers, and effects were violated by any searches or seizures.
Of course, if she did commit a crime, then a warrant could be issued upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. So, the 4th actually affirm that there is no absolute right to privacy. If you commit an offence against the law, and with probable cause the govt can search your person and seize your property.
Navy Pride said:Now I will tell you and I want you to concentrate like a laser beam........Its because the court has been divided 5-4 in the favor of liberal jurists.........
That will change as soon as Alito is confirmed.........
alex said:Wrong. The last time Roe vs. Wade was reaffirmed by SCOTUS it was a 6-3 vote. Roberts replaced one vote against it so that would keep it at 6-3 if he votes against it also. Alito, if he voted against it, would make it 5-4.
Navy Pride said:I have just finished reading the U.S. Constitution......Can any of my liberal friends cite where I can find the right to privacy clause?
Thanks..........
alex said:Read post #17 in this thread.
Navy Pride said:I see the word liberty not privacy.....The 2 words have totally different meanings.........
Definition of privacy
http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm
Definition of liberty
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/liberty
I will be waiting for someone to show me where the word privacy
is quoted............
alex said:You obviously did not read your own sources. Click the liberty link in your post and read definitions #3 and #4.
You are so easy to debate, Navy_Pride, because you kill your own arguements.
Navy Pride said:Don't just personal attack me........show me in the constitution the word privacy in the constitution.........
Thanks:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?