(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:08 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Ok then shouldn't she have referenced the SCOTUS decision rather than the Constitution?

Yup my point exactly. It's not in the Constitution. It was the SCOTUS interpretation and decision at the time and it set a precedent. Does not mean the ruling can't be revisted by a future SCOTUS.

I agree and wouldn't have an issue with her statement if she had mentioned the ruling. She just comes off as ignorant bringing up the Constitution.

I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

Quote:Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s legal right to an abortion, is decided on January 22, 1973. The Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The legal precedent for the decision was rooted in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to privacy involving medical procedures.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of education

Speaker Pelosi tears up a presidential speech on national TV. Majority Leader Shumer directly threatens two justices in front of the Supreme Court building.

I honestly wonder if the Democrats are trying to lose in 2020.

(03-06-2020 06:53 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Speaker Pelosi tears up a presidential speech on national TV. Majority Leader Shumer directly threatens two justices in front of the Supreme Court building.

I honestly wonder if the Democrats are trying to lose in 2020.

They know they aren't going to win so they are just going all in to placate their base.

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:08 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Ok then shouldn't she have referenced the SCOTUS decision rather than the Constitution?

Yup my point exactly. It's not in the Constitution. It was the SCOTUS interpretation and decision at the time and it set a precedent. Does not mean the ruling can't be revisted by a future SCOTUS.

I agree and wouldn't have an issue with her statement if she had mentioned the ruling. She just comes off as ignorant bringing up the Constitution.

I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

Quote:Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s legal right to an abortion, is decided on January 22, 1973. The Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The legal precedent for the decision was rooted in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to privacy involving medical procedures.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

(03-06-2020 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

I would sign it in a heartbeat, just as I would have signed one on Pelosi for that stunt of tearing up the SOTU speech.

(03-06-2020 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:08 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  Yup my point exactly. It's not in the Constitution. It was the SCOTUS interpretation and decision at the time and it set a precedent. Does not mean the ruling can't be revisted by a future SCOTUS.

I agree and wouldn't have an issue with her statement if she had mentioned the ruling. She just comes off as ignorant bringing up the Constitution.

I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

Quote:Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s legal right to an abortion, is decided on January 22, 1973. The Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The legal precedent for the decision was rooted in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to privacy involving medical procedures.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

Maybe "revisit" was ambiguous. But you seem to understand my point.

The SCOTUS is not infallible. The justices do make mistakes. For example, saying that it's OK to kill babies was a mistake. It needs to be rectified.

(03-06-2020 11:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

I would sign it in a heartbeat, just as I would have signed one on Pelosi for that stunt of tearing up the SOTU speech.

I think one hit the House Floor, but Nan-Nan is not going to bring it up for a vote...

(03-06-2020 11:07 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

I would sign it in a heartbeat, just as I would have signed one on Pelosi for that stunt of tearing up the SOTU speech.

I think one hit the House Floor, but Nan-Nan is not going to bring it up for a vote...

So, let the senate pass a censure resolution against Nan, and another against Chuck the Schmuck.

(03-06-2020 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree and wouldn't have an issue with her statement if she had mentioned the ruling. She just comes off as ignorant bringing up the Constitution.

I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

Quote:Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s legal right to an abortion, is decided on January 22, 1973. The Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The legal precedent for the decision was rooted in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to privacy involving medical procedures.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

Maybe "revisit" was ambiguous. But you seem to understand my point.

The SCOTUS is not infallible. The justices do make mistakes. For example, saying that it's OK to kill babies was a mistake. It needs to be rectified.

Well, it wasn't "killing babies" until the right wing political machine took it over.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21165479/ch...ind-threat

At least this leftist article doesn't defend Schumer. But it uses it to attack Republicans. And it is another example of Democrats who just didn't understand what their exalted leader said. "Elections have consequences." If they had run a good candidate in 2016, they might have gotten 2 liberal Supreme Court nominees. They also entirely fail to understand the Constitution and the Great Compromise.

(03-06-2020 11:07 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

I would sign it in a heartbeat, just as I would have signed one on Pelosi for that stunt of tearing up the SOTU speech.

I think one hit the House Floor, but Nan-Nan is not going to bring it up for a vote...

Why would the house vote to censure a Senator?

(03-06-2020 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

Maybe "revisit" was ambiguous. But you seem to understand my point.

The SCOTUS is not infallible. The justices do make mistakes. For example, saying that it's OK to kill babies was a mistake. It needs to be rectified.

Well, it wasn't "killing babies" until the right wing political machine took it over.

I know the left "used" to base their arguments on "science" until said science exposed them.

But going with "science" that fetus in the womb is a human being. Most people even call that person a baby.

But yes, the end-result of abortion is the ending of a human life.

(03-06-2020 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get all that, but SCOTUS decisions interpret the Constitution...and they ruled that they are constitutional under the 14th amendment.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roe-v-wade

You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

Maybe "revisit" was ambiguous. But you seem to understand my point.

The SCOTUS is not infallible. The justices do make mistakes. For example, saying that it's OK to kill babies was a mistake. It needs to be rectified.

Well, it wasn't "killing babies" until the right wing political machine took it over.

Do you think the reason the left is pro abortion is because "women's body/health/rights" or "population control"..?

I'm talking about the real decision maker's on the left. Not the general public.

(03-06-2020 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:41 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I will say thumbs up to McConnell who ripped Schumer a new orifice yesterday on the senate floor.. and did it with surprising decorum.

Up to 12 Republican senators already signed on to the censure resolution.

Unless Democrat senators sign off this is another POS partisan side show.

Whether DJT should have been impeached or not, he wasn't because of partisan votes.

Whether Chuck should be censured or not, he won't be for the same reason.


The end result the exact same, more politicians pretending to look like they are doing something....

(03-06-2020 01:01 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  You do know the SCOTUS also ruled slavery was fine.

So... we're all OK with the court revisiting prior decisions, right?

As long as it's in the course of another case...of course...that's one of their purposes. But no, they don't just decide to go back and revisit a decision...and I assume that's not what you were saying.

Maybe "revisit" was ambiguous. But you seem to understand my point.

The SCOTUS is not infallible. The justices do make mistakes. For example, saying that it's OK to kill babies was a mistake. It needs to be rectified.

Well, it wasn't "killing babies" until the right wing political machine took it over.

Do you think the reason the left is pro abortion is because "women's body/health/rights" or "population control"..?

I'm talking about the real decision maker's on the left. Not the general public.

1. I don't know of anyone who is PRO abortion. I support the right to choose, but I'd prefer all are given up for adoption...or prevented from the get go with contraception and more education. (Rape/Incest/Health excepted).
2. When the majority of abortions are from lower income folks and minorities, why would the left want to shrink their voting bloc?

To me, it's a decision that should be made by the mother, family, and their doctor. The government just needs to butt out. I get the religion argument of many, but our government should not be forcing religious views and stances on anyone.

(03-06-2020 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. I don't know of anyone who is PRO abortion. I support the right to choose, but I'd prefer all are given up for adoption...or prevented from the get go with contraception and more education. (Rape/Incest/Health excepted).
2. When the majority of abortions are from lower income folks and minorities, why would the left want to shrink their voting bloc?

To me, it's a decision that should be made by the mother, family, and their doctor. The government just needs to butt out. I get the religion argument of many, but our government should not be forcing religious views and stances on anyone.

THIS

+2 for you