Enforcement of abortion pill bans
- Thread starter Cortez88
- Start date
Yes. Let's codify the third trimester restrictions. Democrats vote against it every time.
I asked this before and may have missed the answer. When was a compromise sought in Congress? Thought you said Republicans had brought forth one. May have been someone else but couldn’t find it.
Look up the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
All Democrats voted against it.
Look up the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. The summary of it is:
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
All Democrats voted against it.
OK. It's not lying, and I don't even thing they were misleading anyone. Everyone knew exactly what they were saying.
More dishonesty. They should have told the American people exactly where they stood. A majority of Americans were fine with Roe v. Wade.
Not from their testimony. They didn't come out and clearly state to Americans what their position was: that is dishonest. Once again, kudos to Clarence Thomas for being honest: at least one of them is.
None of them, Democratic or Republican appointees, come out and clearly state what their position is. It was clear that Kagan, Sotomayer and Breyer were safe votes to uphold Roe during their confirmation hearings. It was pretty clear that the Republican nominees were less likely to do so during theirs. Were you surprised by any of the votes? The only one I thought might go either way was Roberts, and he did go another way. He said he wouldn't have supported overturning Roe.
So was Susan Collins and other just stupid, they didn’t really care or what? She, among others met with the nominees personally and said they got reassurance.
2003 is pretty much ancient history. I don’t think most people were concerned that the GOP would become so extreme as they are now. But I’ll look it up.
U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session
roll_call_vote.xml
I honestly don't believe they were told anything different than what the nominees said in their hearings. These people are very, very careful with their language. It's time to move on. I'm prochoice with restrictions. Most Americans are. Our elected representatives should pass some laws that represent either their state's will or the country's.
They were free to be honest about something a majority of Americans did not want overturned, and they chose not to be honest.
I don't believe proper stare decisis analysis permitted the court to overturn Roe and Casey. I believe additional proper analysis under textualism/strict construction, let alone SDP analysis, could also have produced not overturning Roe and Casey. Extreme conservative justices did not personally like abortion or Roe or Casey, and abortion SCOTUS precedent didn't jive with their legal philosophy: once again, not good legal grounds to overturn the precedent, and it creates a bad environment where the majority can overturn cases they don't like. I am suprised that SCOTUS justices would actually do what they did because they shouldn't have.
Roberts would have partly overturned Roe and Casey, specifically the viability part.
Last edited:
Holy crap, I was wrong. A minority of Dems voted for it and most voted against. Good on those that voted for. I was actually thinking of another vote, which I've linked here before, but now Google only shows me recent articles about abortion and I'm too lazy to go page by page to find that vote again.
Last edited:
Lol it happens to the best of us. I vaguely remember Bayh voting against one.
Collins and Manchin are either stupid or lying. No one with more than three brain cells thought any of Trump's appointees would vote to keep Roe.
Speaking of stalkers and stupid people, you aren't real quick are you?
You mentioned doing something stupid, yes inferred, and said happens to the best of us. You aren't close to being the best of anything except perhaps a TDS inflicted liar. You are good at that !
Your whole stalker thing is cute but just doesn't fit. For like the 50th time I will explain to you and maybe sometime your brain will compute this but I doubt it .
You post prolifically on a public message board, I don't like what you have to say, I respond. Furthermore I don't like you, so again I respond. What part of this is difficult for you to understand?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Where were they dishonest? Can you cite a specific statement they gave that they made that was knowingly false?
I think you're complaint should be directed at the standard:
Supreme Court
Nomination and confirmation
During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation hearings, Ginsburg refused to answer questions about her view on the constitutionality of some issues such as the death penalty as it was an issue she might have to vote on if it came before the Court.[77]
At the same time, Ginsburg did answer questions about some potentially controversial issues. For instance, she affirmed her belief in a constitutional right to privacy and explained at some length her personal judicial philosophy and thoughts regarding gender equality.[78]: 15–16 Ginsburg was more forthright in discussing her views on topics about which she had previously written.[77] The United States Senate confirmed her by a 96–3 vote on August 3, 1993.[e][41] She received her commission on August 5, 1993[41] and took her judicial oath on August 10, 1993.[80]
Ginsburg's name was later invoked during the confirmation process of John Roberts. Ginsburg was not the first nominee to avoid answering certain specific questions before Congress,[f] and as a young attorney in 1981 Roberts had advised against Supreme Court nominees' giving specific responses.[81] Nevertheless, some conservative commentators and senators invoked the phrase "Ginsburg precedent" to defend his demurrers.[76][81] In a September 28, 2005, speech at Wake Forest University, Ginsburg said Roberts's refusal to answer questions during his Senate confirmation hearings on some cases was "unquestionably right".[82]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Wikipedia
See also:
The Ginsburg Rule
When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten. Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical...
www.heritage.org
Will Senate apply the Ginsburg or the Barrett Rule to Judge Jackson?
The Senate should consider the implications of further narrowing the range of permissible questions in confirmations.
thehill.com
This standard isn't set in stone, and any guidelines for answering questions is murky. I think these justices already had their minds made up, so future evidence or cases aren't an excuse: this is a problem in itself, and they were cetainly free to tell the American public their true intentions. They could have made crystal clear what their legal philosophy was regarding abortion and whether Roe and Casey were decided correctly in accordance with their legal philosophy.Where were they dishonest? Can you cite a specific statement they gave that they made that was knowingly false?
I think you're complaint should be directed at the standard:
Supreme Court
Nomination and confirmation
During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation hearings, Ginsburg refused to answer questions about her view on the constitutionality of some issues such as the death penalty as it was an issue she might have to vote on if it came before the Court.[77]
At the same time, Ginsburg did answer questions about some potentially controversial issues. For instance, she affirmed her belief in a constitutional right to privacy and explained at some length her personal judicial philosophy and thoughts regarding gender equality.[78]: 15–16 Ginsburg was more forthright in discussing her views on topics about which she had previously written.[77] The United States Senate confirmed her by a 96–3 vote on August 3, 1993.[e][41] She received her commission on August 5, 1993[41] and took her judicial oath on August 10, 1993.[80]
Ginsburg's name was later invoked during the confirmation process of John Roberts. Ginsburg was not the first nominee to avoid answering certain specific questions before Congress,[f] and as a young attorney in 1981 Roberts had advised against Supreme Court nominees' giving specific responses.[81] Nevertheless, some conservative commentators and senators invoked the phrase "Ginsburg precedent" to defend his demurrers.[76][81] In a September 28, 2005, speech at Wake Forest University, Ginsburg said Roberts's refusal to answer questions during his Senate confirmation hearings on some cases was "unquestionably right".[82]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
See also:
The Ginsburg Rule
When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten. Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical...
Will Senate apply the Ginsburg or the Barrett Rule to Judge Jackson?
The Senate should consider the implications of further narrowing the range of permissible questions in confirmations.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
If the canon of judicial ethics doesn't allow it, I don't think they can. See Section 5(a)(3)(D):
Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 5
A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I should say, I'd be in favor of altering this canon for Supreme Court nominees, since a lot of what they do is at the periphery of legal interpretation and policy making.If the canon of judicial ethics doesn't allow it, I don't think they can. See Section 5(a)(3)(D):
Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 5
A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activitywww.americanbar.org
But I reject this drumbeat of claims of illegitimacy directed at the Court (of which, I think, this argument that the three Trump appointees all lied is one). I think these arguments are really dangerous to our country (no matter who makes them--right or left).
A judge can't make promises or pledges regarding how they will rule on a case. However, I think a fair question would be if they already have their mind made up regarding abortion or overruling cases, which I think was the case. Candidates can talk about their judicial philosophy and decided cases.If the canon of judicial ethics doesn't allow it, I don't think they can. See Section 5(a)(3)(D):
Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 5
A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity
These conservative justices stated that other SDP rights were safe after obliterating the foundation for SDP rights: dishonest is certainly one way to interpret this.
Last edited:
You say they "aren't wrong for having a different philosophy,legal or political". Is that really true? Because it is clear to anyone,that Liberal policy does not work. Why are all of our major cities that are controlled by dems seeing huge spike in crime? Why is the Baltimore school system in shambles? Why are police resigning in droves in NYC? Why are there 30 murders(reported) in Chicago every weekend? Is it a coincidence? Does anyone hold these people(in charge) responsible for their poor job performance? No,they buy into the constant barrage of lies that blame someone else. How long can a party hold onto "its not the policy,its the person"...and then blame whichever scapegoat has been designated to save the "liberal" political view. I would have never believed that so many people,had 0 common sense,and were never taught how to think. It's sad. The system creates idiots. And for the most part anymore,parents are trash. Our country is doomed.
You really just can't help yourself can you? I guess when TDS has been keeping you awake at night for 6+ years this happens. Kind of like why you are so jealous of all the women Trump supposedly sexually harassed in your mind.
What are your thoughts on states like Mississippi, Alabama who are totally run by Republicans who are always at the top of the poverty lists, least educated , etc?
We should let them sink or swim with their own money. Let the rich be rich and the poor be poor. It’s the only way one learns how not to be poor. Or accepts being poor…either way works for me
They are high on the poverty list,but not high on crime lists. How is one able to separate the two,and the other not?
Obviously crime is going to be much higher in large cities where people are on top of each other than rural areas where you might travel miles without seeing anyone.
i think the senators who favor Roe v. Wade created their own probl‘em. How a justice would look at a particular case or a particular issue is a grossly unfair and wrong headed view about the confirmation proces.
Justice Jackson’s comments about inalienable rights should have been a big deal at her hearing. The senators don’t give a crap about that mundane stuff. They woould rather focus on high school behavior than the bedrock which supports the constitution.
There is going to be more crime where there are more people. The economy of liberal California is the 5th largest economy in the world: sounds like they must be doing something right. The rural economies in red areas typically aren't the greatest.
Last edited:
Is that counting all the people in CA living under tarps and over passes? It is a huge state so what if it has the 5th largest '' econony '' in the world if you are living under abridge. I only bring up misspelling in posts by people trying to tell us how much more educated they are, yet still can't spell.
You got me there: I misspelled a word on the internet. "Abridge," got ya!
Somebody made the comment that "liberal policy doesn't work." Well, the 5th largest economy in the world sounds like something is working right. I'd take that economy over any rural county in Mississippi or Alabama.
