ADVERTISEMENT

Roe overturned. Be kind

Make your politicians stop acting like it then. That’s what ridiculous. Taking away rights that have been settled laws for 50 years. If men got pregnant they’d have drive through abortions.
If elected Democrats had stuck with permitting abortion in the first trimester and not voted lock step against any and all restrictions until birth, we’d be in a better place as a country. We’ve let our politicians take the extreme positions on each side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and DANC
If elected Democrats had stuck with permitting abortion in the first trimester and not voted lock step against any and all restrictions until birth, we’d be in a better place as a country. We’ve let our politicians take the extreme positions on each side.
It would have made no difference. Republicans have been gunning for this for decades.There are many reasons for abortions in second term. Third term I would agree on only serious medical reasons.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark and DANC
Do you think the recent SCJ’s were selected with the expectation to make this decision?

Edit: The expectation they would definitely decide to overturn RvW in this situation? That’s why they were selected?
Yes, among other things.
 
Yes, among other things.
So why would citizens think they are legitimate when they are politically and intentionally selected for these purposes?

Sorry if your comment was more general in saying citizens shouldn’t have to worry about this or a politicized SC.
 
Knew the same type of people. They supported abortion for those reasons even if they don’t publicly admit it. Are they even Catholic at that point if all they do is show up every week or two?
Yeah. Wrong. You can **** the shit out of someone and not get them pregnant. There are lots of ways.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jet812
I didn't say perjury. I'm just saying in real life, we all know what the dance was. They were wink wink nod nod promising not to mess with Roe, and they always had every intention of doing just that. That's why they are on the court. This is the reason they were picked.
Agree. Nominees from both sides do this every time.
 
Yeah. Wrong. You can **** the shit out of someone and not get them pregnant. There are lots of ways.
Like not tell them you paid for an abortion or the girl not telling you. Shat happens way more than you think.

Edit: Them = Anybody. You think college frosh Kyle from Catholic High would tell his parents.
 
100 percent disagree. They did not lie in their confirmation hearings. They were very careful in their language as judges usually are. There isn't a chance in hades that any of them could be convicted of perjuryl, if anyone ever was so stupid to charge them with it, because they didn't lie.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC and Bill4411
So why would citizens think they are legitimate when they are politically and intentionally selected for these purposes?

Sorry if your comment was more general in saying citizens shouldn’t have to worry about this or a politicized SC.
Because the Constitution vests power in the President to nominate and appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. Did that happen in each case, for each justice? Yes, it did. So "they are legitimate."

The Constitution does not limit the decision criteria for the President, but his power is checked in two ways: (1) the Senate must consent to the selection and (2) the electorate can hold the President (or the Senate) responsible and vote them out if they don't like what they did.

Was the Court illegitimate if Kennedy and then Johnson (who was as brash, inappropriate, and bullying as Trump, although more controlled) appointed their justices because they wanted to advance the civil rights movement? I sure hope not. FDR's court illegitimate because he threatened to pack it? Was the Court previously illegitimate because justices like Ginsburg were selected to uphold Roe? My answer to all of these is no.

Each Senator can institute a rule if he or she likes that if a justice doesn't answer questions on a particular topic and invokes the Ginsburg Rule (ironic, no?), then that Senator will not vote for that candidate (no matter the party). But they don't and the electorate doesn't care enough to hold them responsible.
 
It’s going to touch lots of things, and not just those having to with sex, pregnancy, etc.
If Thomas has his way, this is rapidly approaching:

In contrast, federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, did not believe a bill of rights was necessary. Since the government was limited to its delegated powers, it seemed unnecessary to define the rights of the people. In fact, some federalists thought a bill of rights was a dangerous concept – rights omitted may be considered unretained.
 
100 percent disagree. They did not lie in their confirmation hearings. They were very careful in their language as judges usually are. There isn't a chance in hades that any of them could be convicted of perjuryl, if anyone ever was so stupid to charge them with it, because they didn't lie.
Regardless, in their private discussions with the Trump administration, do you think they said the same thing as what they testified in the hearings?
 
It would have made no difference. Republicans have been gunning for this for decades.There are many reasons for abortions in second term. Third term I would agree on only serious medical reasons.
Democratic politicians have been gunning for abortion on demand until birth and Republican politicians have been mostly anti-abortion. However, Republicans have offered bills in Congress only to restrict third trimester abortion, with exceptions, and no Democrats voted for them. That’s where Americans are. 90% of European countries are more restrictive than we we have been, but are in line with what Americans think.

If it was up to me we’d have a federal law allowing abortion in the first trimester and banning it in the third except for physical danger to the mother or death or in viability of the baby. I’d leave the second trimester up to the states. I’m not in charge. I do believe this should be up to the federal or state legislatures though.
 
Democratic politicians have been gunning for abortion on demand until birth and Republican politicians have been mostly anti-abortion. However, Republicans have offered bills in Congress only to restrict third trimester abortion, with exceptions, and no Democrats voted for them. That’s where Americans are. 90% of European countries are more restrictive than we we have been, but are in line with what Americans think.

If it was up to me we’d have a federal law allowing abortion in the first trimester and banning it in the third except for physical danger to the mother or death or in viability of the baby. I’d leave the second trimester up to the states. I’m not in charge. I do believe this should be up to the federal or state legislatures though.
I don’t remember that? When did Republicans put forth a compromise bill? Not doubting you just don’t remember.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Business Conventions, sporting events such as final fours and all star games, and movie producers/ filming companies should never ever consider locations in states with abortion bans. Zip.
 
Agree. Nominees from both sides do this every time.
It's all theater. Roe effectively died when RBG did. All of the questioning at the nomination hearings was simply an opportunity for senators to engage in whatever posturing they considered politically expedient.

And I don't lay the blame on the nominees, by the way. They are forced to go through the charade. The senators write the script. Collins pretending they pulled a fast one on her is ridiculous. She knew what her votes meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Lucy01
Business Conventions, sporting events such as final fours and all star games, and movie producers/ filming companies should never ever consider locations in states with abortion bans. Zip.
Good idea. Let’s screw the hospitality and tourist industry service workers because fat cat executives got their noses out of joint.
 
That's fine, that benefit should be taxed to the employee and not deductible for the businesses though as it is non business related.

It also opens them all up to sex based discrimination when a male employee getting cancer treatment isn't receiving travel expenses to go to that out of state cancer clinic they attend for treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
This. It has nothing to do with the constitution. Their are thousands of laws and rulings we abide by that arent specifically stated in the constitution.

This is about legislating christian(or some draconian version of it) morality on the entire country. And yes entire country. Even though states get to choose. This effects the entire country.
 
This. It has nothing to do with the constitution. Their are thousands of laws and rulings we abide by that arent specifically stated in the constitution.

This is about legislating christian(or some draconian version of it) morality on the entire country. And yes entire country. Even though states get to choose. This effects the entire country.
Abortion Is birth control for the lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
This. It has nothing to do with the constitution. Their are thousands of laws and rulings we abide by that arent specifically stated in the constitution.

This is about legislating christian(or some draconian version of it) morality on the entire country. And yes entire country. Even though states get to choose. This effects the entire country.
You almost had it in the first paragraph and still managed to collapse into stupidity in the second. Try again. You are almost there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Just read an article, dated today, in the NYT, by Charlie Savage, addressing what each justice said about Roe during confirmation hearings. No one said they would or would not vote to overturn Roe. A lot of discussion about precedence and stare decisis, but no one gave any indication how they would vote in the future.

Every case is unique and no justice worth his/her salt would ever say how they would vote in the future. Precedent is important, but if the precedent was incorrectly and emotionally decided then it can be appropriate to strike it down. Seems that has happened in the past. If it hadn’t we would have some pretty horrible decisions hanging over our heads today.

It’s a deliberate and shameful attempt by some - Collins, Pelosi, Manchin and others - to say the justices lied. But given the sources what would you expect?
They’re politicians doing what politicians do.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT