Jump to content

BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

Once again…they did not answer this way. Why not?

 

Why pick this old issue up again anyway with less than 30% support nationally? Nothing more important?

I have no idea what you're getting at on this anymore. I've done.

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

On a side note, I would guess that well over 80% of people that create a baby are drinking, if not drunk. 

 

Am I wrong? 

Yes.....you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TH3 said:

lets kick back same sex marriage, interracial marriage, racial issues, environmental legilsation, health and safety, edcational standards back to the states too!

Trying to be ironic? 😂 

 

I absolutely am for localization of educational standards. Federal education standards are terrible!

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Trying to be ironic? 😂 

 

I absolutely am for localization of educational standards. Federal education standards are terrible!

You guys want election laws being totally local, too, right? 

_____

 

What nonsense. Alito is a joke of a justice 

Quote


In the 98-page long document, lies a footnote where Alito ventures to recognize some early proponents of abortion rights favored eugenics.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Politico reported. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

 

 

This is so stupid. So a poor black women that cannot afford a child, makes an independent decision to terminate her pregnancy is somehow advancing a racist agenda? That's so stupid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They lied. Just totally lied. What a snow job. I thought we have a republic. What of republican virtue? Just nothing 

 

GOP Sen. Susan Collins said on Tuesday that a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico was "completely inconsistent" with what Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh "said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."

"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement.

 https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/susan-collins-reaction-kavanaugh-gorsuch/index.html

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have no idea what you're getting at on this anymore. I've done.

Yes.....you are wrong.

What I’m getting at is the growing politicization of the supreme court.

 

This is hardly an issue that has enough support to make it a priority, yet it is being made a priority. The recent appointees of the former president did not give respectful noncommittal answers befitting judges during their confirmation hearings. They claimed Roe was settled law, but now are flipping on those statements. I don’t find it coincidental considering that the man who nominated them was very vocal about Roe being overturned. 
 

Now you’ll have more on the left pushing to pack courts themselves and we’ll continue to get further and further from approaching issues from an honest footing. Sad.
 

 

Edited by Rockpile233
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

What I’m getting at is the growing politicization of the supreme court.

 

This is hardly an issue that has enough support to make it a priority, yet it is being made a priority. The recent appointees of the former president did not give respectful noncommittal answers befitting judges during their confirmation hearings. They claimed Roe was settled law, but now are flipping on those statements. I don’t find it coincidental considering that the man who nominated them was very vocal about Roe being overturned. 
 

Now you’ll have more on the left pushing to pack courts themselves and we’ll continue to get further and further from approaching issues from an honest footing. Sad.
 

 

With all due respect…You don’t know whether any of that is true. There’s been no ruling on anything.That’s why a leak like this is so incredibly damaging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all due respect…You don’t know whether any of that is true. There’s been no ruling on anything.That’s why a leak like this is so incredibly damaging. 

Yes of course, but Roberts confirmed the authenticity so it would certainly be the betting favorite at the moment. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rockpile233 said:

Yes of course, but Roberts confirmed the authenticity so it would certainly be the betting favorite at the moment. 

Ugh…but you do not know how deliberations have gone, or are still going. But to be clear…you’re concerned that a Justice didn’t want to be totally forthcoming about their private opinion on how they’re leaning on a clearly divisive societal issue, but have no problem with the latest one who doesn’t want to tell you what a woman is…when she OBVIOUSLY knows? Is that right?

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ugh…but you do not know how deliberations have gone, or are still going. But to be clear…you’re concerned that a Justice didn’t want to be totally forthcoming about their private opinion on how they’re leaning on a clearly divisive societal issue, but have no problem with the latest one who doesn’t want to tell you what a woman is…when she OBVIOUSLY knows? Is that right?

I have a problem with that too. All symptoms of a larger problem. If this ultimately is the decision will just deepen the divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

I have a problem with that too. All symptoms of a larger problem. If this ultimately is the decision will just deepen the divide.

From your point of you, no doubt. But remember your point of view is not shared by a whole lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ugh…but you do not know how deliberations have gone, or are still going. But to be clear…you’re concerned that a Justice didn’t want to be totally forthcoming about their private opinion on how they’re leaning on a clearly divisive societal issue, but have no problem with the latest one who doesn’t want to tell you what a woman is…when she OBVIOUSLY knows? Is that right?

But she didn't lie about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

You guys want election laws being totally local, too, right? 

I’m not sure who you guys are. Assuming you mean constitutionally literate individuals who understand the deliberate decentralization of power established to impede monarchical rule?  
 

Guilty as charged. I sure don’t want the federal government in control of all the nations election laws.

 

And if you don’t want guys like trump to have to power to rig things so they can win elections they didnt, you should feel the same. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

They lied. Just totally lied. What a snow job. I thought we have a republic. What of republican virtue? Just nothing 

 

GOP Sen. Susan Collins said on Tuesday that a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico was "completely inconsistent" with what Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh "said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."

"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement.

 https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/susan-collins-reaction-kavanaugh-gorsuch/index.html

 

 

 

Hahahaha......do this for the libs.   Every case.  

 

 

 

 

We have *checks notes* a "woman" just appointed to SCOTUS that couldn't tell you what a woman is.

 

Keep reaching.  

1 hour ago, 716er said:

 

 

 

 

Great news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I’m not sure who you guys are. Assuming you mean constitutionally literate individuals who understand the deliberate decentralization of power established to impede monarchical rule?  
 

Guilty as charged. I sure don’t want the federal government in control of all the nations election laws.

 

And if you don’t want guys like trump to have to power to rig things so they can win elections they didnt, you should feel the same. 

You are constitutionally literate enough to know that blacks were disenfranchised when the feds looked the other way on voting rights, right? 

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Hahahaha......do this for the libs.   Every case.  

 

 

 

 

We have *checks notes* a "woman" just appointed to SCOTUS that couldn't tell you what a woman is.

 

Keep reaching.  

 

 

Great news.  

Yup, they lied. Good moral

christian ha ha ha!! 
 

Thou shall not bear false witness ha ha ha 

 

You guys are good and using that phony religious sentiment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

You guys are good and using that phony religious sentiment. 

 

 

 

 

Nah.  I could go Biblical but...not necessary.  Despite most of Western Civilization's laws being grounded in the principles are spare you the details of what once made us the freest people in history that became man's last best hope.

 

It's a life.  It's that simple.  

 

 

 

Sorry for the inconvenience.  Your b.s. about privacy sunk long ago; 15 days and masks for life have made you a parody.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

You are constitutionally literate enough to know that blacks were disenfranchised when the feds looked the other way on voting rights, right? 


Yep- it’s still crazy how the republicans overwhelmed the democrats and LBJ rebelling against his own racist Democratic Party to make it all happen.  although there are some sound bites purportedly from him that he thought he was buying votes. 
 

The senate was particularly instrumental, once again exemplifying the importance of decentralized government, balance of power and the brilliance of the senate construct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, benderbender said:

Will this the affect the $70,000 average cost of adoption?

Well... Supply and demand would insinuate yes that should go down, but in our version of capitalism, three big companies will find a way to keep that cost at 70k.

 

Seriously, this decision will deepen the divide between Conservatives and Liberals. Just what this country needs more extremism... Ffs 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nkreed said:

Well... Supply and demand would insinuate yes that should go down

 

Whether or not abortion is legal, roughly the same amount of abortions will occur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Whether or not abortion is legal, roughly the same amount of abortions will occur. 

So which of the following are you alluding to?

Not that many abortions happen per year

Or

Back alley abortions will rise up again

Or 

Doctors will do it despite the laws

Or

States where they make access mostly impossible, without fully crossing the line, already have fewer abortions so this is a liberal states issue only

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

This is so stupid. So a poor black women that cannot afford a child, makes an independent decision to terminate her pregnancy is somehow advancing a racist agenda? That's so stupid 

Write down today's date.  As another poster pointed out on the board here earlier today with abortion now front-and-center the left has suddenly become aware and capable of annunciating the definition of a "women".  A biologically defined human being capable of becoming pregnant and childbirth.  We're making progress!      

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nkreed said:

So which of the following are you alluding to?

Not that many abortions happen per year

Or

Back alley abortions will rise up again

Or 

Doctors will do it despite the laws

Or

States where they make access mostly impossible, without fully crossing the line, already have fewer abortions so this is a liberal states issue only

 

 

 

Middle two

 

Pretty good article I read earlier. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Write down today's date.  As another poster pointed out on the board here earlier today with abortion now front-and-center the left has suddenly become aware and capable of annunciating the definition of a "women".  A biologically defined human being capable of becoming pregnant and childbirth.  We're making progress!      

Nice dodge 

58 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

Nah.  I could go Biblical but...not necessary.  Despite most of Western Civilization's laws being grounded in the principles are spare you the details of what once made us the freest people in history that became man's last best hope.

 

It's a life.  It's that simple.  

 

 

 

Sorry for the inconvenience.  Your b.s. about privacy sunk long ago; 15 days and masks for life have made you a parody.   

Good liars, phoney religious stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Whether or not abortion is legal, roughly the same amount of abortions will occur. 

So why did your side make people where masks since laws don't matter much and roughly the same amount of people will do it anyways. This does not outlaw abortion in any way, you have to be completely devoid of understanding of our constitution to believe that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

🎯

 

 

 

 

Zero care for this assault on the Republic?

 

Fascinating 

 

And a surprise to no one.  

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

 

Um.

 

It isn't official.

 

They are actively trying to intimidate a SCOTUS judge to flip.

 

Wtf is there to celebrate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Zero care for this assault on the Republic?

 

Fascinating 

 

And a surprise to no one.  

 

 

Um.

 

It isn't official.

 

They are actively trying to intimidate a SCOTUS judge to flip.

 

Wtf is there to celebrate?

Who is trying to intimidate a judge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Whether or not abortion is legal, roughly the same amount of abortions will occur. 

 

Sir i have to agree it's just the same as the war on drugs or out lawing guns if the people want it bad enough they will get it & the gov't be dammed doesn't mean that it is right but they will find a way .

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Who is trying to intimidate a judge? 

 

Any one in politics that disagrees like Warren she will do what ever she thinks to be right even though she has proven her self to be a wing nut IMHO ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Zero care for this assault on the Republic?

 

Fascinating 

 

And a surprise to no one.  

 

 

Um.

 

It isn't official.

 

They are actively trying to intimidate a SCOTUS judge to flip.

 

Wtf is there to celebrate?

 

giphy.gif?cid=5e214886uoq8fad2x5w9n37ndb

 

Just turned on Brian Kiilmeade (he is subbing for Jesse Watters who sucks and won’t last at the 7pm hour) - so much fear vocalized watching the blue wave form… lolz

 

ETTD

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...