• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

SCOTUS strikes down Luisiana abortion law

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,229
Reaction score
39,874
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Prove it.
Well, in general your posts dont help disprove it...

So why not get back on topic?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,533
Reaction score
11,710
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Perhaps though one of them will likely be that living fossil Ginsburg which won't change anything.

and he still has to get them approved by the Senate which as of now is still controlled by the GOP with a decent chance it will still be so in 2021.
Actually, if the GOP keeps propping up Trump and voters have not forgotten they voted to clear him of his disgusting Ukraine behavior, it is almost guaranteed the senate will also go blue/democrat.

12 democratic senators need to fight for re-election whereas 24 republicans are up for re-election. So the odds are with this incredibly unpopular president, a few of those republicans will fall.

In 2022 another 32 are up for re-election. And again 12 democrats are up and 20 republicans, giving another risk for losses in the senate for the republicans.

At the moment electoral vote has the senate (based on opinion polls) 52 democrats, 1 tie and 47 republicans.

It is all but certain that Mark Kelly will oust McSally (Kelly is up 49% to 38%, 11 percentage points) so that will be one republican loosing a senate seat

In Colorado Cory Gardner (republican incumbent) is running against John Hickenlooper and he is trailing the democrat, so that could be 2 lost senate seats.

In Iowa at this moment (last opinion poll just 2 weeks ago) Joni Ernst is in a really hard re-election fight with democrat Theresa Greenfield. As of now Greenfield is up 2%.

Susan Collins in Maine also has a real fight on her hands, the republican is a few percentage points behind.

Even in Montana and North Carolina the republicans are trailing the democrat.

Only Doug Jones is sure to loose his seat in the Senate as he is not running against a suspected young woman obsessed former judge.

Now we are still early in the race, but so far the odds of the republicans holding on to power in a year that will likely see a lot of anti-Trump voting are not that great. The anti-Trump sentiment could scupper the chances of the republicans holding on to the senate.

So your claim it has a decent chance of holding on is not really that obvious when looking at the facts of how badly some republicans are doing and how many seats they have to defend compared to the democrats.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,533
Reaction score
11,710
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We'll find other ways. I'm proud to say that my state has very little access to abortion.
Waging a war on women's rights is never something to be proud of. Now saying you have brought down abortion by positive means would be an achievement to be proud of, what you are however being proud of is not really a positive, it is very much a negative.
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
10,310
Reaction score
4,483
Location
NE Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If I were nominating Supreme Court justices I would nominate those who had no special belief in stare decisis.
Just tell the truth. You'd put fascists and religious loons who supported your revisionist nonsense that the US is a Christian country on the bench.


You have the right to be wrong.
He usually is.
 

Dayton3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
1,031
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just tell the truth. You'd put fascists and religious loons who supported your revisionist nonsense that the US is a Christian country on the bench.




He usually is.
You throw accusations like that around too casually. Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. was a fascist nation in 1972?
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
10,310
Reaction score
4,483
Location
NE Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You throw accusations like that around too casually. Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. was a fascist nation in 1972?
Fascism didn't exist as an idea in 1789.
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
10,310
Reaction score
4,483
Location
NE Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive

Dayton3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
1,031
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why would the US have been a fascist nation in 1972? Where did you get that idea from?
1972 was before Roe V. Wade

And you're the one who brought up the idea of the me wanting fascism in the United States. A return to 1972 would NOT make the U.S. fascist would it?
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
2,981
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sad. Chief Justice John Roberts has shown that he is more interested in his place in history than anything else. Considering he voted to uphold the Texas law that was almost identical just eight years ago.
From what I heard on Democracy Now without reading the opinion, Roberts decided this case on the near impossibility of the clinic physicians to get admitting privileges as those are largely going the way of the dodobird unless you are directly employed by a hospital.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,229
Reaction score
39,874
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
From what I heard on Democracy Now without reading the opinion, Roberts decided this case on the near impossibility of the clinic physicians to get admitting privileges as those are largely going the way of the dodobird unless you are directly employed by a hospital.
More likely recognized the complete hypocrisy in demanding it for abortions (14 times safer than childbirth) and not for midwives.

See post 59


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
7,120
Reaction score
2,546
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In a 5 - 4 decision SCOTUS struck down the Luisiana abortion law.

GOOD.
Thanks John Roberts. Hardly a conservative. Thanks George Bush, he snuckered you. This ruling is not based on law but precendent of a previous decision of the SCOTUS that is poorly rendered. In fact they don't even cite law, in the decision, just their previous decision.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,229
Reaction score
39,874
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Thanks John Roberts. Hardly a conservative. Thanks George Bush, he snuckered you. This ruling is not based on law but precendent of a previous decision of the SCOTUS that is poorly rendered. In fact they don't even cite law, in the decision, just their previous decision.
Wrong, it's based on at least 10 precedents. Certainly not all were 'poorly rendered.' Which one are you referring to?

And btw, it was a 7-2 decision by a mostly conservative bench.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 

Dayton3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
1,031
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why? What is it about judicial precedent that irks you?
As Justice Thomas noted, precedents that were not properly based on the constitution in the first place do not deserve to be respected in any way.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,229
Reaction score
39,874
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As Justice Thomas noted, precedents that were not properly based on the constitution in the first place do not deserve to be respected in any way.
Which ones used for RvW fall into that category?


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,543
Reaction score
24,969
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As Justice Thomas noted, precedents that were not properly based on the constitution in the first place do not deserve to be respected in any way.
Ahh yes, there were several precedents that led to Roe.

Perhaps this one is the first one that should be thrown out:

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

That way all children would attend a public school.

No more religious schools.
No more private schools.
No more boarding schools.

And of course no more home schooling.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,229
Reaction score
39,874
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Ahh yes, there were several precedents that led to Roe.

Perhaps this one is the first one that should be thrown out:

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

That way all children would attend a public school.

No more religious schools.
No more private schools.
No more boarding schools.

And of course no more home schooling.
He posted earlier he didnt care if the govt told him how and where to school his kids.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,909
Reaction score
3,565
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ahh yes, there were several precedents that led to Roe.

Perhaps this one is the first one that should be thrown out:

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

That way all children would attend a public school.

No more religious schools.
No more private schools.
No more boarding schools.

And of course no more home schooling.
ironic isn't it. Religious conservatives go to the Supreme Court in 1925 to ask for the right to make private family decisions; decisions that are at the heart of the family, how your kids are educated. These same people want to deny this right to women; the right to make a decision that is at the heart of the family, how many children you can afford to raise in safety, security, love, with caring and guidance.
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
10,310
Reaction score
4,483
Location
NE Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Which ones used for RvW fall into that category?
Dayton is still convinced that the US was created as a Christian county and that there is no separation of church and state. He want a conservative Christian theocracy as part of his fascist dreams.
 
Top Bottom