(03-05-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

What Amendment is she basing that on? Is it the 14th?

Not an amendment. I assume she's referring to SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade.

I'm under the impression that Roe v Wade is just the precedent ruling, since abortion is not stated anywhere as a Constitutional right.

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Ok then shouldn't she have referenced the SCOTUS decision rather than the Constitution?

By the way, here’s Schumer a couple of weeks ago saying people shouldn’t threaten the judiciary.

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

(03-05-2020 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

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.

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

(03-05-2020 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

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.

(03-05-2020 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

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

(03-05-2020 01:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

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

(03-05-2020 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

Perhaps you can cite an indictment or court case...or...anything...on this?

(03-05-2020 02:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

Perhaps you can cite an indictment or court case...or...anything...on this?

Protection by corrupt legal authorities is not a sufficient defense of your position. I give you the present FBI who is tasked with such things. Partisan and corrupt! Enjoy your time for now Tom, but the public is beginning to see all of this for what it is.

(03-05-2020 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

Perhaps you can cite an indictment or court case...or...anything...on this?

Protection by corrupt legal authorities is not a sufficient defense of your position. I give you the present FBI who is tasked with such things. Partisan and corrupt! Enjoy your time for now Tom, but the public is beginning to see all of this for what it is.

Dude, when she's charged and then convicted, I'll be right there with you calling for her to be gone. Until then....

(03-05-2020 02:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Allah might want to have a word with her about this.

She has to be simply a radical leftist. Because if she were back in Somalia with her Muslim faithful she would have already been stoned!

But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

Perhaps you can cite an indictment or court case...or...anything...on this?

LOL...come on Tom, you can't be serious. Even if she was indicted, you would still choose to follow her and any other "D" like a lost little puppy.

But she won't be due to the pathetic records from her home country. It could never be proven in a court of law short of her brother/husband confessing.

(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:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

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

Thanks for finding this. Good to know the legal precedent they used to decide Roe vs. Wade. and the exact amendment they interpreted to come to the decision.

IMO if I were in a political position, I would still refer to Row vs. Wade ruling and the set legal precedent other than the Constitution.

There are thousands of rulings based on interpretation or former legal precedent and no one goes around saying those are Constitutional rights. Also, the Row vs. Wade itself was rooted on another decision made in 1965 lol. It's obviously not very clear what the founding fathers would have wanted or thought.

(03-05-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

What Amendment is she basing that on? Is it the 14th?

Not an amendment. I assume she's referring to SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade.

Actually from a whole grab bag of personal privacy and repose cases....Griswold v Connecticut, Frank v. Maryland, Mapp v. Ohio, Skinner v Oklahoma and about 8 more that Roe v. Wade relies upon when they made up something out of whole cloth to get to the result the thought was proper. Regardless of how you feel about abortion legally it’s the silliest drafted SCOTUS opinion ever. It’s the kind of thing a 1L tries to argue unsuccessfully in moot court.

Penumbras and emanations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments...Think they threw the 3rd in there too. From a legal reasoning perspective, it’s utter tripe.

(03-04-2020 04:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Funny he didn't mention the Bush or Obama justices, only the Trump Justices. It's almost like such a classification actually exists

He knows the new judges are the ones who will swing the court from radleftists back to sanity.

(03-05-2020 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:13 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  This is sick and dumb.

What Amendment is she basing that on? Is it the 14th?

Not an amendment. I assume she's referring to SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade.

Actually from a whole grab bag of personal privacy and repose cases....Griswold v Connecticut, Frank v. Maryland, Mapp v. Ohio, Skinner v Oklahoma and about 8 more that Roe v. Wade relies upon when they made up something out of whole cloth to get to the result the thought was proper. Regardless of how you feel about abortion legally it’s the silliest drafted SCOTUS opinion ever. It’s the kind of thing a 1L tries to argue unsuccessfully in moot court.

Penumbras and emanations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments...Think they threw the 3rd in there too. From a legal reasoning perspective, it’s utter tripe.

They had a result they wanted and created it by drafting a compromise piece of legislation.

(03-05-2020 02:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

Sure she is! That's why she violated the laws to get her brother in, why she stirs hatred against this nation, and in fairness to Islam which she relies upon to get votes from her district, violates its teachings.

She's nothing but a militant narcissist and that Tom makes your assertions meaningless rhetoric from another radical.

Perhaps you can cite an indictment or court case...or...anything...on this?

Protection by corrupt legal authorities is not a sufficient defense of your position. I give you the present FBI who is tasked with such things. Partisan and corrupt! Enjoy your time for now Tom, but the public is beginning to see all of this for what it is.

Dude, when she's charged and then convicted, I'll be right there with you calling for her to be gone. Until then....

(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:  

(03-05-2020 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But, she's not in Somalia. And last I checked, she's a US congressperson tasked with representation of folks of all (and no) religions, and following our Constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on it.

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?