- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 35,017
- Reaction score
- 12,431
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I'm still unsure whether the misplaced letter was unintentional, or intended to remind us of a certain recent president.
It was. What did they lie about?So did the two appointed SC judges lie to Congress when asked questions about Roe v Wade?
Didn't they both say that Roe v Wade was established law?
Well, if Kavanaugh and Barret vote to overturn Roe, then they will have contradicted statements they made in their hearings.It was. What did they lie about?
Constitution disagrees.Our actions are not defined by what the states c says that we can do.
Are you claiming abortion was as prevalent back then as it is now? disingenuous argument at best. Framers were busy with other stuff.We have the right to do as we want until there is a compelling state interest to say that we cannot do that. This is the very core concept of freedom. Abortion was well known in the 1790s and the Framers made no attempt to ban it.
Huh? Using there catch-all "fascist" tripe doesn't strengthen your argument at all. All this does is pass authority down to the states. Here in California, for instance the Governor is already call for a (state) constitution amendment.You should have your freedoms limited by your fascist idea while the rest of us can act as we wish and are only limited by that same compelling state interest test. The internet and computers are not part of the US Constitioonm, so got off of it.
5 of the seven justices who passed Roe were conservative republican appointees.Dems has stacked so many justices all over. Why do you think we even got RvW in the first place?
Jesus wasn't anti-abortion and he didn't support personhood.Yup. And in the meantime, Trump-supporting Christians have debased themselves over the past 6 years. WWJD?
• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
The compelling state interest test is a core idea of constitutional law. Computers and the internet aren't in the US Constitution either, so according to your idea, your actions are criminal.Constitution disagrees.
Are you claiming abortion was as prevalent back then as it is now? disingenuous argument at best. Framers were busy with other stuff.
Huh? Using there catch-all "fascist" tripe doesn't strengthen your argument at all. All this does is pass authority down to the states. Here in California, for instance the Governor is already call for a (state) constitution amendment.
It was established law when they were asked.So did the two appointed SC judges lie to Congress when asked questions about Roe v Wade?
Didn't they both say that Roe v Wade was established law?
Actually, Kavanaugh said " settled law". In legalese that implies that he thought it a binding precedent.It was established law when they were asked.
Until they voted to overturn it themeless, but we aren't supposed to notice their hypocrisy.It was established law when they were asked.
Yes. Now we see why they stuck with Trump no matter how vile, repulsive, or mendacious he was. It was pretty puzzling as we went through it. But I guess it’s clear that the ends justify the means, even for our Christian friends..................... to Christians who supported him.
Roe vs Wade.
Based on the leaked opinion draft - if nobody backs out, and everyone stays firm - it'll be overturned.
It'll be mission accomplished.
Being appointed by republicans does not make a judge conservative. David Souter and William J. Brennan Jr are an example of liberal justices appointed by republicans.5 of the seven justices who passed Roe were conservative republican appointees.
Roe v Wade is a small government conservative decision. It got the government out of peoples lives. Said the government had no business in de idioms better left to families and their doctors.
The new Republican party is small government conservative in name only.
When two men strive...Jesus wasn't anti-abortion and he didn't support personhood.
The compelling state interest test is a core idea of constitutional law. Computers and the internet aren't in the US Constitution either, so according to your idea, your actions are criminal.
99.9% of anti-abortion arguments are based on religion which violates the Establishment clause's separation of church and state. The fact that the Bible isn't pro-life or anti-abortion is lost on conservatives.
Abortion has been prevalent throughout history. If you think abortion will be stopped by the SCOTUS, think again.Constitution disagrees.
Are you claiming abortion was as prevalent back then as it is now? disingenuous argument at best. Framers were busy with other stuff.
Huh? Using there catch-all "fascist" tripe doesn't strengthen your argument at all. All this does is pass authority down to the states. Here in California, for instance the Governor is already call for a (state) constitution amendment.
Deuteronomy25 is Old Testament. Are you Jewish or Christian?When two men strive...
Can't remember the chapter and verse, but God obviously values the woman as human life and not the unborn child
Kinda leaving you hanging, but if you Google my first sentence the verse will surely come up.
“If two Israelite men get into a fight and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man,
Five republican appointed justices decided Roe v Wade. A Republican wrote the majority opinion.Dems has stacked so many justices all over. Why do you think we even got RvW in the first place?
The “Christian friends” have addressed this, saying that God uses “imperfect vessels,” King David and Trump, to carry out his will. But the abortion issue and the gun control questions show the power of single-issue politics, where a determined minority can impose its will on the majority.Yes. Now we see why they stuck with Trump no matter how vile, repulsive, or mendacious he was. It was pretty puzzling as we went through it. But I guess it’s clear that the ends justify the means, even for our Christian friends.
You can't figure it out?It was. What did they lie about?
and still is,It was established law when they were asked.
Well you have to remember that Trumpers aren’t the brightest bulbs.As if we needed proof of how ignorant the right is about history and facts....
Don't you have any integrity?It was established law when they were asked.
The decision itself is small Government conservative.Being appointed by republicans does not make a judge conservative. David Souter and William J. Brennan Jr are an example of liberal justices appointed by republicans.
Well, how about that.
There is at least one righty who is happy to openly admit that they wanted a stacked SCOTUS to impose Christian mandates on the rest of us.
They're Christians like the current Republicans are the party of Lincoln.Well, how about that.
There is at least one righty who is happy to openly admit that they wanted a stacked SCOTUS to impose Christian mandates on the rest of us.