Trump v Vance

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

He's arguing that a fetus is not a person. So any number is higher than 0

 

I will also argue that the human brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 26...

I know what he is arguing but he also stated that a baby wasn't alive until it was alive outside the womb---per the law. If that's the case, Northam is a self-confessed murderer. 

[realtruelove]

I can remember the first time I saw a baby bird come out of an egg.  I could not believe that there were no feathers.  And the little eyes were bugging out.  They grow up so fast.

[The Guy In Pants]

25 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

I can remember the first time I saw a baby bird come out of an egg.  I could not believe that there were no feathers.  And the little eyes were bugging out.  They grow up so fast.

Life is beautiful and it exists beyond our scope of acceptance and understanding. It exists whether or not we see it or believe it. It doesn’t give a ***** about whether or not someone finds it politically beneficial to support it. Life is bigger than we are. We are naive to believe we are it’s end all, be all.

Edited May 12, 2020 by The Guy In Pants

[SectionC3]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

 

What about the viability of a fetus?

Abortions generally can't be performed, per Roe vs. Wade in the third trimester (there are exceptions).  That 24-28 week standard is almost 50 years old.  Viability is actually sooner than that, based upon today's medicine.  So, yes, you want to play the "person" game, but actually a person can easily be considered, by law, as a fetus in the third trimester.  Looking at it that way, there are thousands of late-term abortions each year in the United States.  Still fewer than total gun deaths, but maybe as many as homicides.

 

I tend to stay away from abortion discussions, so I won't be responding to any of your replies on this, just so you know.

 

Edit:

2017 late term abortions were approximately 11,000 in 2017  https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CLI-Fact-Sheet-Late-Term-Abortion-February-24-2020.pdf

 

2017 gun homicides in 2017 were approximately 11,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/

 

You may not be as right as you think you are.

 

 

 

 

Born alive rule, bro.  Read it.  A fetus does not become a person until the fetus is born alive. 

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

congratulations. you made the, 'you're an idiot' list. 

 Copying the libs to own the libs.  Be better! 

[realtruelove]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Born alive rule, bro.  Read it.  A fetus does not become a person until the fetus is born alive. 

Have you ever met someone that was born dead?

 

[Albwan]

1 minute ago, realtruelove said:

Have you ever met someone that was born dead?

 

far left liberals are dead inside

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

Have you ever met someone that was born dead?

 

Nope. 

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Earlier in this thread you kept saying guns kill more people. Did you just have an epiphany and now it's gun violence kills more people? Governor Northam confessed on tape that he would follow the mother's wishes if a planned abortion baby was actually born alive and kill it if she wanted that done. By your definition, he is a murderer. A black-faced murderer. 

Nope.  They both kill.  The gun violence reference made its first appearance in connection to a point with respect to a homicide. 

6 minutes ago, Albwan said:

far left liberals are dead inside

Funny I feel the same way about trumpers. 

[oldmanfan]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It changes EVERYTHING in fact. You're arguing for a complete subversion of the western notion of jurisprudence. You're arguing that the onus is on the individual to prove his innocence. That's been the mantra of tyrants since the beginning of time, and why LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY spent hundreds of years fighting for the system we have now. 

 

You're 100% incorrect. 

No man is above the law.  Bedrock principle of our country.  To argue that is inane.  

 

Innocent until proven guilty.  Another bedrock principal.  The prosecutors look at the evidence, they think it’s enough to charge they charge.  Prosecutors have to make their case and prove your guilt.  You as defendant make your case.  Doesn’t matter who it is president or not, Trump, Obama, George Washington, could care less which President.  Presidents cannot escape being accountable to the law.  And prosecutors must make their case.  You hold a president above the law they’re called kings.  Or dictators.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by oldmanfan

[oldmanfan]

You all have fun.  I come over on this side of the board every so often just to see how the weird kids over In the corner of the playground are behaving, and sometimes I can’t resist jumping in.  I’ll be returning to the sanity of real life now.

[Chef Jim]

13 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Because Mueller couldn't say the president committed a crime.  Given your deep understanding of such processes I'm sure you get that.  It's not Mueller's job to say whether the president committed a crime.  That's for a trier of fact.  It is Mueller's job to present cases in which there is legally sufficient evidence of a crime to a grand jury.  Mueller wouldn't even have the conversation with respect to collusion/conspiracy given his inability to marshal legally sufficient evidence of a crime with respect to that issue.  He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but refused to do so based on the quantum of the proof.  Instead he took the next step, saying that this might be a case appropriate for grand jury review ("if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment") but that it couldn't reach that point because of DOJ guidelines precluding the indictment of a sitting president.  All of the Trump apologists want to delude themselves into thinking that there's "nothing" there, but a straight, clean, pristine, and universally respected career prosecutor concluded otherwise.  

Again I didn’t follow all that closely because my life is very busy but if Mueller couldn’t say that the President committed a crime what was the point of this whole Kabuki Dance?

[snafu]

46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Born alive rule, bro.  Read it.  A fetus does not become a person until the fetus is born alive. 

 Copying the libs to own the libs.  Be better! 

 

Well you’re saying that the law defines what a “person” is, but at the same time a third trimester fetus is deemed to have the right not to be aborted, except in certain excepted cases. A fetus has a Constitutionally protected right to be born. A major feature of laws is that they confer rights to some people and obligations on other people. Inanimate objects don’t have rights, people have rights. Also, consider the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. My point it that your “born alive” riddle answer isn’t black and white. I don’t buy your answer.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

8 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

No one is the country is above the law.  Should be simple.  If his records show nothing then he's got nothing to worry about.

Exactly. Does he look worried?

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

No one is the country is above the law.  Should be simple.  If his records show nothing then he's got nothing to worry about.

The law stipulates, first and foremost, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

It also does not afford, but rather directly prohibits, the government from simply casting aspersions, especially those knowingly invented, and forcing individuals to defend themselves against those aspersions.  Even more so when the government itself knowing concocts false evidence to present.

 

Or, given that you have nothing to hide, are you comfortable with the federal government using it’s vast powers and nearly unlimited finances and resources to investigate you, your family, your friends, your business associates, and everyone you’ve ever known; working under the assumption that you’re absolutely guilty of something, and that they’re going to find it?

 

Answer yes, or you’re a hypocrite.

 

 

[snafu]

41 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You all have fun.  I come over on this side of the board every so often just to see how the weird kids over In the corner of the playground are behaving, and sometimes I can’t resist jumping in.  I’ll be returning to the sanity of real life now.

 

Is this where someone says bye Felicia?

 

[SectionC3]

54 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Well you’re saying that the law defines what a “person” is, but at the same time a third trimester fetus is deemed to have the right not to be aborted, except in certain excepted cases. A fetus has a Constitutionally protected right to be born. A major feature of laws is that they confer rights to some people and obligations on other people. Inanimate objects don’t have rights, people have rights. Also, consider the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. My point it that your “born alive” riddle answer isn’t black and white. I don’t buy your answer.

 

 

You said it best: a third trimester FETUS.  Not person.  FETUS.  
 

edit:

 

its been a long time since I took con law, but recollection of roe is that the regulation of third trimester abortion flows not from a right conferred upon a fetus, but from the state interest in protecting the POTENTIAL for human life that accrues when the fetus becomes viable.  

56 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Again I didn’t follow all that closely because my life is very busy but if Mueller couldn’t say that the President committed a crime what was the point of this whole Kabuki Dance?

In the near term, to marshal evidence to enable the making of findings.  Which is exactly what he did.   It was up to Congress to act on the evidence.  Which it did.  Grand jury presentation could come after trump leaves office. 
 

Edited May 13, 2020 by SectionC3

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  Another bedrock principal.  The prosecutors look at the evidence, they think it’s enough to charge they charge.  

You are literally the one arguing against this principle. You’re just too daft to see it because you’re not thinking clearly. 

[snafu]

11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

You said it best: a third trimester FETUS.  Not person.  FETUS.  

To make findings.  Which is exactly what he did.   It was up to Congress to act on the findings.  Which it did.  
 

 

Yep, I said the law recognizes a fetus as a person.

Contrary to what you said.

I also said that your assertion that gun violence kills more people than abortions is not true, at least in 2017 it wasn’t true.

 

You’re also wrong about Mueller. He was appointed by the Department of Justice. He was to have, and did, report his findings to the Department of Justice. The DOJ was the Executive branch agency which had the authority to act on the findings, or not.  If congress wanted someone to investigate, they could have appointed a special counsel — who would investigate and report to Congress.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by snafu

[CarpetCrawler]

On 5/9/2020 at 8:59 AM, Chris farley said:

I picked up this 15 pound brisket at Sam's for 3.98$ a pound.  It's in the fridge now getting a cold brine till tonight.  it's gonna go on the pellet grill (competition blend) till an internal temp of 170 or so.  Then its gonna get wrapped in peach paper with a splash of bourbon till an internal of 195.  Gonna finish it by  wrapping in a towel and putting in a cooler for an hour. 

 

After all that, gonna deliver a hot plate of brisket, beans, greens, and Mac and cheese to mom for a mother's day dinner.  

Tell me more about this peach paper??? I'm unfamiliar.

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, CarpetCrawler said:

Tell me more about this peach paper??? I'm unfamiliar.

Must........refrain......from.......yo mama joke!!!! 

[SectionC3]

56 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Well you’re saying that the law defines what a “person” is, but at the same time a third trimester fetus is deemed to have the right not to be aborted, except in certain excepted cases. A fetus has a Constitutionally protected right to be born. A major feature of laws is that they confer rights to some people and obligations on other people. Inanimate objects don’t have rights, people have rights. Also, consider the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. My point it that your “born alive” riddle answer isn’t black and white. I don’t buy your answer.

 

 

And the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide in your hypothetical is meaningless.  Mom and fetus are not treated the same under the law; NY penal law article 125 illustrates the point well.  Murder or man charges re: the baby wouldn’t stand.  An abortion act charge might, but that charge doesn’t contemplate the death of a person — it relates only to a miscarriage. 

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Yep, I said the law recognizes a fetus as a person.

Contrary to what you said.

I also said that your assertion that gun violence kills more people than abortions is not true, at least in 2017 it wasn’t true.

 

You’re also wrong about Mueller. He was appointed by the Department of Justice. He was to have, and did, report his findings to the Department of Justice. The DOJ was the Executive branch agency which had the authority to act on the findings, or not.  If congress wanted someone to investigate, they could have appointed a special counsel — who would investigate and report to Congress.

 

 

 

 

 Your reading comprehension is lacking..  Nobody said anything about reporting to congress.  It was within congressional province to act on the findings inasmuch as congress effectively is the arbiter with respect to a sitting president.  

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide in your hypothetical is meaningless.  Mom and fetus are not treated the same under the law; NY penal law article 125 illustrates the point well.  Murder or man charges re: the baby wouldn’t stand.  An abortion act charge might, but that charge doesn’t contemplate the death of a person — it relates only to a miscarriage. 

 

Not every jurisdiction is New York.

And my hypothetical wasn’t related to abortion prosecutions. More like domestic abuse or vehicular manslaughter, etc.

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by snafu

[SectionC3]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Not every jurisdiction is New York.

 

Sure.  But the vast majority of jurisdictions approach the law this way.  

[snafu]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Sure.  But the vast majority of jurisdictions approach the law this way.  

 

^^^^^ see my edited post, above.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ see my edited post, above.

you said homicide.  Abortional act is the homicide crime that relates to the unwanted termination of a fetus.  Murder, man, etc.  wouldn’t stand bc the fetus has to be born alive to be a person, and the latter classes of charges pertain to the death of a person, not of a fetus.  You’re correct that death of mom and fetus could result in two homicide charges, but the classes of charges are different and the charges with respect to baby do not assume or confer personhood. 
 

I believe the vehicular man issue was resolved against your position in NYS on two relatively recent occasions. 

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

you said homicide.  Abortional act is the homicide crime that relates to the unwanted termination of a fetus.  Murder, man, etc.  wouldn’t stand bc the fetus has to be born alive to be a person, and the latter classes of charges pertain to the death of a person, not of a fetus.  You’re correct that death of mom and fetus could result in two homicide charges, but the classes of charges are different and the charges with respect to baby do not assume or confer personhood. 
 

I believe the vehicular man issue was resolved against your position in NYS on two relatively recent occasions. 

 

All of which buttresses my point that the Supreme Court has conferred a Constitutionally protected right on fetuses,and therefore the law treats unborn fetuses as people — before they are born alive. This right extends to acts against fetuses, which wouldn’t be punishable if fetuses were not considered people. Therefore, you CAN compare the annual rate of late term abortions vs. gun homicides in the United States and safely say that one and the other are approximately ecactly the same (at least in 2017).  Your initial premise is false.

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

All of which buttresses my point that the Supreme Court has conferred a Constitutionally protected right on fetuses,and therefore the law treats unborn fetuses as people — before they are born alive. This right extends to acts against fetuses, which wouldn’t be punishable if fetuses were not considered people. Therefore, you CAN compare the annual rate of late term abortions vs. gun homicides in the United States and safely say that one and the other are approximately ecactly the same (at least in 2017).  Your initial premise is false.

 

 

 

You’re all twisted up here.  You’re injecting a constitutional discussion into a quote about  criminal statutes.  And, frankly, your statutory interpretation is absurd.  At issue here is the NYS penal law, which defines person as one who has been born and is alive.  
 

Your point probably is that to characterize an abortional act as a homicide is to suggest personhood on the part of the fetus.  Reasonable, to be sure, but the full text of the title to NY PL 125 doesn’t support the theory (homicide, abortion, and other crimes [paraphrase]) and the definition of person established in that article flat out defeats it.   

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

You’re all twisted up here.  You’re injecting a constitutional discussion into a quote about  criminal statutes.  And, frankly, your statutory interpretation is absurd.  At issue here is the NYS penal law, which defines person as one who has been born and is alive.  
 

Your point probably is that to characterize an abortional act as a homicide is to suggest personhood on the part of the fetus.  Reasonable, to be sure, but the full text of the title to NY PL 125 doesn’t support the theory (homicide, abortion, and other crimes [paraphrase]) and the definition of person established in that article flat out defeats it.   

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

[SectionC3]

7 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

 

You argument is one that might be rooted in Irish law, but it has no foundation in American law.  

 

1.  Penal Law article 125 absolutely relates to the central premise.  It defines a person as "a human who has been born and is alive."   

 

2.  Roe does not place "a duty . . . upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born" after the second trimester.  In point of fact Roe considers the ability of states to regulate abortion.  As a pregnancy progresses, the extent of regulation grows, and the third trimester is a period in which the state may increase regulation to safeguard its interest in "protecting fetal life after viability."  That's not a right to be born, it's a right on the part of the state to regulate. And even if it is a right to be born, there is no conferral of personhood upon the fetus.  Why?  Move to point 3.  

 

3.  Some light reading from Roe, which specifically rejected the "personhood" contention you seek to inject into American law. 

 

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

Arrest them all! Women, doctors, heck, arrest the fetus too. 

 

They just want to harass harass women and make their lives difficult. 

[snafu]

55 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

52 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

 

If a fetus is a person, then consuming beer on behalf of that minor person would constitute endangering the welfare of a child.  

 

"A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old . . . ."

 

EDIT: 

 

This is admittedly a bit dicey with respect to an unknown pregnancy.  Knowingly can be interpreted as pertaining to the consumption of the beer, but it's arguable.  There would be no argument with respect to alcohol consumption if the pregnant consumer was aware of the pregnancy.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by SectionC3

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

 

Also, I just received a census form.  Should my wife take a pregnancy test before I return the form?  What if she's pregnant?  Do we add an extra child to the form?  Do I "deduct" that unborn "child" on my federal income tax return?  Any advice in this respect would be appreciated, counselor. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

The GOP is running out of issues to fire up the "moral" base, so they squeeze this issue for as much as they can, yet most of the world is coming to accept abortion as a woman's right. Even Ireland allows it now. 

[Tiberius]

So yesterday, while Trump's lawyers were arguing he was too busy to address a subpoena which might take two or three hours of his time, Trump was sitting around doing his idiotic tweeting all day. What a joke this administration is. 

[Nanker]

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Nanker

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So yesterday, while Trump's lawyers were arguing he was too busy to address a subpoena which might take two or three hours of his time, Trump was sitting around doing his idiotic tweeting all day. What a joke this administration is. 

 

Would have been a great point at oral argument.  Particularly with argument being broadcast.  Great, great point. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Would have been a great point at oral argument.  Particularly with argument being broadcast.  Great, great point. 

I can't take credit, Racheal Maddow was all over it, lol. 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show She had a great section on this, with quotes and all from the court 

[Tiberius]

Here is c-spans full coverage of the hearing, really interesting https://www.c-span.org/video/?471676-1/supreme-court-oral-argument-trump-v-vance