Roe vs Wade Overturned

[Gene Frenkle]

26 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Barrett 50

 

Kavanaugh  57

 

Gorsuch 54

 

Your entire existence is irrelevant at a large enough time scale.

And those people are pretty old if you're under 20.

 

The Zeitgeist is unstoppable and it moves to the left.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Gene Frenkle

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 minute ago, Demongyz said:

I typically vote on 1A and 2A so never a Democrat.  I'm personally anti-abortion, but don't vote based on abortion.  I'm happy that it's going to be banned in many states and not happy that they will be killing 5 year olds in others, but the federal system exists for a reason and I support that.

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

[Demongyz]

2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Your entire existence is irrelevant at a large enough time scale.

And those people are pretty old if you're under 20.

 

The Zeitgeist is unstoppable and it moves to the left.

-Stalin

[Demongyz]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

I support easier and cheaper adoptions.  I support feeding children.  I don't think we should increase taxes, I think we should spend money more wisely.  How many kids could we feed with $40B?

[Gene Frenkle]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

 

Amazing how relevant he still is today, after all these years.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Demongyz said:

I support easier and cheaper adoptions.  I support feeding children.  I don't think we should increase taxes, I think we should spend money more wisely.  How many kids could we feed with $40B?

Ask Elon Musk.

[Gene Frenkle]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

AKA: the vast majority of people who live in the country who agree with a woman's right to choose.

[Demongyz]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Ask Elon Musk.

Why?

Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

AKA: the vast majority of people who live in the country who agree with a woman's right to choose.

Or a gunman showed up to Kavenagh's house with a gun and intent to kill.

[Gene Frenkle]

5 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

-Stalin

 

Calling me a commie? Socialist!?

 

What a douche

1 minute ago, Demongyz said:

Why?

Or a gunman showed up to Kavenagh's house with a gun and intent to kill.

 

How did they get those guns? 😆

[Demongyz]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Calling me a commie? Socialist!?

 

What a douche

 

How did they get those guns? 😆

I'm calling you a fool

 

It's not whether he has a gun, it's what he will use it for.

[Gene Frenkle]

3 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

I'm calling you a fool

 

It's not whether he has a gun, it's what he will use it for.

 

[SoCal Deek]

With all the recent focus on pronouns it appears that many of you have forgotten where babies come from. Do we need a refresher class? 

[Gene Frenkle]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all the recent focus on pronouns it appears that many of you have forgotten where babies come from. Do we need a refresher class? 

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

Get a sense of humor Gene…but DIRECTLY ON the subject, you do know where babies come from, right?

[Demongyz]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

This is about an originalist Supreme Court overturning an activist Supreme Court.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, muppy said:

You Know I am more moderate than most posters here. I look at the world with a lens that would rather seek peace and compromise instead of the constant gridlock and set in political sides butting heads.  Some issues are just not easy to compromise. Abortion is one of those areas. I kind of straddle the fence because being of the opinion that I hate abortion but vote for the right to choose. It is a position that I wish women wouldnt need to face nearly as often as does happen.

 

as far as politicos go yeah there are some watershed issues that guide a persons vote. Id have t choose the democrat because of issues like this one. I just dont feel the government has the right to say what I do with my own body.  I think he timing of when abortions are allowed to happen would be very valid compromise for women who aren't otherwise medically indicated

Me too, Mup. I'm moderate in many ways as well, get along with people quite nicely and really view the voting process as "Who is the candidate that will hurt me least?".  

 

As for abortion, it always struck me that somewhere between conception and birth just about every sensible person became pro-life.  Again, I was wrong. A woman's right to choose is a fair concept, but I'm not uncomfortable attaching my vote to a woman's right to choose at 40 weeks is reasonable across the board.   Somewhere between conception and 3...maybe 4 months seems reasonable to me, but hey, I'm just an old guy with grown children. 

 

I think the government already tells you some things you can and cannot do with your body, Mup.  Drugs, suicide, alcohol and smokes, come to mind.  I also think the government is a real crackerjack with the close cousin of "My body my rules" and that's telling people what they must do with the fruits of their labor, or the moral obligation one has to another in certain situations.  

 

I don't argue with people on this issue, Mup, it's a waste of time and issues can be misconstrued.  I'll go back to the basics and suggest that if the ruling was problematic to begin with, why not just be honest about that and deal with the outcome?   I'll tell you why---conflict drives votes. 

 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Get a sense of humor Gene…but DIRECTLY ON the subject, you do know where babies come from, right?

 

Yeah, I made a couple a while back. Figured it out.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Demongyz said:

This is about an originalist Supreme Court overturning an activist Supreme Court.

 

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Yeah, I made a couple a while back. Figured it out.

So you agree that it doesn’t spontaneously combust….excellent! Just checking. 

[Demongyz]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Right, because if we were to create founding documents upon which the entire government is built, we should allow a few folks rewrite it willy nilly.  You want to change the constitution, call a convention of states.

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So you agree that it doesn’t spontaneously combust….excellent! Just checking. 

 

Jokes aside, because you're a reasonable person, this is pretty ***** up. There will be consequences. The court should not be so eager to overturn precedent just because it has a strong majority. The entire reason for its existence is to weigh both sides of important issues and rule in favor of law, precedent and the will of the people. Now it feels like the moral minority is waging war on the average American. Soon, I think the majority of America will share this view.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Demongyz said:

Right, because if we were to create founding documents upon which the entire government is built, we should allow a few folks rewrite it willy nilly.  You want to change the constitution, call a convention of states.

 

Originalism is the idea that the justices can know with certainty what the founders intended about any issue, and therefore any precedent that contradicts it should be overturned. So justices get to ask themselves questions like "What did the founders think about airplane regulations?" come to a conclusion and write that decision. It's an easy way to decide the issue however you want and them make up a reason to support your decision.

 

Under originalism, we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education.

 

You may be thinking of textualism, which is to simply focus on the plain meaning of the text. It's a legit method of constitutional interpretation but is often confused with originalism.

 

Traditional judicial precedent interpretation takes into account the constitution, the law in question, as well as the history of the law as applied to the facts of the case. It promotes stability of the law as opposed to the quickly changing law we find ourselves in with an originalist court.

[B-Man]

 

I disagree with the "impeachment" statement, but he should be called out by every past DOJ official.

 

Merrick Garland Should Be Impeached for His Response to Roe Being Overturned

 

 

The responses to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade have been coming in hot and heavy. As expected, consternation has flowed from the pro-abortion set, with the media outcry matching the intensity of outrage of Democrat politicians.

 

But one person you’d hope would react with some levity would be AG Merrick Garland. After all, he ostensibly heads a DOJ that is supposed to be impartial and focused on the law, not enacting political revenge for the Biden administration.

 

Yet, that’s the direction things are obviously headed after seeing Garland’s statement. In it, he ignores the role of federal law enforcement, pledging his massive bureaucracy to the whims of the pro-abortion lobby. This may be the most overtly political moment in DOJ history.

 

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means,” Garland said.

 

I want to stop there to comment on how racist and insulting Garland’s assertion is. Why will the greatest burden fall on “people of color”? Is the idea that “black and brown” Americans are so stupid and incapable that they need to be able to kill their children, less they fail miserably at life? Because that’s what it sounds like Garland is saying.

 

Moving on, the AG then pledged to “advance” reproductive freedom, something I’m pretty sure is not within the purview of the DOJ.

 

{snip}

 

The DOJ has been completely outed as a partisan political outfit, reduced by the Biden administration to the role of directly pushing preferred Democrat policies, even those that cost the lives of children. If that’s not a dereliction of duty and violation of oath worthy of removal then nothing is. Garland’s statement is a direct challenge to the constitutional power of the Supreme Court, with it boiling down to a promise to defy Friday’s landmark ruling.

 

With Republicans on pace to retake the House this fall, one of their first orders of business in the new year should be impeaching Garland. His actions have stepped over the line several times since he’s taken office, but this is by far his worst betrayal of the DOJ yet. It can’t be allowed to stand, if the department is going to maintain any semblance of credibility going forward.

 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/24/merrick-garland-should-be-impeached-for-his-response-to-roe-being-overturned-n583724

 

 

[muppy]

16 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Me too, Mup. I'm moderate in many ways as well, get along with people quite nicely and really view the voting process as "Who is the candidate that will hurt me least?".  

 

As for abortion, it always struck me that somewhere between conception and birth just about every sensible person became pro-life.  Again, I was wrong. A woman's right to choose is a fair concept, but I'm not uncomfortable attaching my vote to a woman's right to choose at 40 weeks is reasonable across the board.   Somewhere between conception and 3...maybe 4 months seems reasonable to me, but hey, I'm just an old guy with grown children. 

 

I think the government already tells you some things you can and cannot do with your body, Mup.  Drugs, suicide, alcohol and smokes, come to mind.  I also think the government is a real crackerjack with the close cousin of "My body my rules" and that's telling people what they must do with the fruits of their labor, or the moral obligation one has to another in certain situations.  

 

I don't argue with people on this issue, Mup, it's a waste of time and issues can be misconstrued.  I'll go back to the basics and suggest that if the ruling was problematic to begin with, why not just be honest about that and deal with the outcome?   I'll tell you why---conflict drives votes. 

 

 

I post in here leo because its the safest most intelligent reads from folks I trust. That says a LOT and it is only a few here I feel I can discourse on difficult subjects:-))))) we're always good leo. Peace.

Edited June 25, 2022 by muppy

[Demongyz]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Originalism is the idea that the justices can know with certainty what the founders intended about any issue, and therefore any precedent that contradicts it should be overturned. So justices get to ask themselves questions like "What did the founders think about airplane regulations?" come to a conclusion and write that decision. It's an easy way to decide the issue however you want and them make up a reason to support your decision.

 

Under originalism, we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education.

 

You may be thinking of textualism, which is to simply focus on the plain meaning of the text. It's a legit method of constitutional interpretation but is often confused with originalism.

 

Traditional judicial precedent interpretation takes into account the constitution, the law in question, as well as the history of the law as applied to the facts of the case. It promotes stability of the law as opposed to the quickly changing law we find ourselves in with an originalist court.

Yes, I'm thinking of textualism. Thank you.

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Jokes aside, because you're a reasonable person, this is pretty ***** up. There will be consequences. The court should not be so eager to overturn precedent just because it has a strong majority. The entire reason for its existence is to weigh both sides of important issues and rule in favor of law, precedent and the will of the people. Now it feels like the moral minority is waging war on the average American. Soon, I think the majority of America will share this view.

I am actually a very reasonable person…but only to a point. So with all due respect, the Court is absolutely not supposed to give a rats twit about public opinion. That’s the express role of the legislative branch. I’m continually amazed as to how uninformed people are about how this country’s government is constructed. (No offense.)

Edited June 24, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

🎯

 

Dick’s Sporting Goods will provide up to $4,000 in travel reimbursement for employees who live in states that restrict abortion access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

🎯

 

This will all backfire on the cult.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[yall]

Man, regardless of what side you're on everyone seems to agree on what a woman is today....

[muppy]

1 hour ago, muppy said:

I chit in here leo because its the safest most intelligent reads from folks I trust. That says a LOT and it is only a few here I feel I can discourse on difficult subjects.

I latched on to you a while back Lord have mercy :-))))) we always good leo. Peace.

 whats so funny? PLEASE put me on Ignore.

 

@T&C

Edited June 24, 2022 by muppy

[Niagara Bill]

4 hours ago, Demongyz said:

Even RBG thought Roe was trash.  It's not based on law.

The 2nd amendment should be cause for the SCOTUS to overturn any law restricting firearms.

If a state decides to ban invitro fertilization, I suppose they could, but the feds could not.  It seems to be a bit misguided, it's not like killing babies, it's creating babies.

I think a state should be able to ban doctors from performing trans surgeries just like I think a state can allow it.  I'm against mutilating people because of their gender dysmorphia, but I suppose that is their choice.  The difference as I see it between the two is that a fetus has unique DNA separate from both parents.  It is a human life and thus should be protected.

I do not see how they can have it both ways. You argument is bordering on religion . Some Christian beliefs are different than others. If AR 15 are ok, then translate invitro, etc should be to. Roe v Wade was not bad law, just needed regulations. Much like guns. Most people are responsible with guns. Most are responsible with abortion, then you get wackos.

Whether a female gets pregnant with a dick or needle she is still pregnant.

I personally detest gun owners who misuse guns for other than reasonable sport or protection. I detest people who get abortions at 5 6 7 8 months for no reason. 

America has no reasonable position on either.

Another generation coming of hate, violence, religious crap, NRA vitriol, and nothing else. 

Thank goodness I am likely to miss most of it.

 

 

[BillStime]

[Bad Things]

What a giant dumpster fire America has become. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Bad Things

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, yall said:

Man, regardless of what side you're on everyone seems to agree on what a woman is today....

 

I'm sure there's a lot of "women" with penises who are very upset today.

[nedboy7]

You anti abortion freaks coming after contraception and gay marriage next?  Good luck. 

1 hour ago, yall said:

Man, regardless of what side you're on everyone seems to agree on what a woman is today....

 

What is important is everyone agrees with you on what a woman is. 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, nedboy7 said:

You anti abortion freaks coming after contraception and gay marriage next?  Good luck. 

They are. And who’s gonna stop them?

[716er]

Just now, nedboy7 said:

You anti abortion freaks coming after contraception and gay marriage next?  Good luck. 

They have fuxked the country as we know it.

[All_Pro_Bills]

27 minutes ago, BillStime said:

That's odd because what I found is French law allows abortions in the first 14 weeks and requires 2 doctors to certify the women's life is at risk or if the fetus has some fatal condition afterward.  Which sounds quite restrictive relative to what it is/was here.  Is that correct?

[Irv]

If you think abortion is acceptable up to the birth date is ok  - you are a sick *****.  ***** YOU.  ***** YOU.