(12-03-2021 09:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 07:13 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  Hopefully this speeds up our needed split. People who support, or want, abortions can move to the blue states that provide them. It can help concentrate the lefties in fewer areas.

Righties will still live in red states and travel to blue ones to get their abortions.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but the overall number of babies killed each year should drop dramatically.

Isn't 63 million dead babies enough?

Not if you're a communist America hating progressive.

(12-03-2021 09:58 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 09:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 07:13 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  Hopefully this speeds up our needed split. People who support, or want, abortions can move to the blue states that provide them. It can help concentrate the lefties in fewer areas.

Righties will still live in red states and travel to blue ones to get their abortions.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but the overall number of babies killed each year should drop dramatically.

Isn't 63 million dead babies enough?

Not if you're a communist America hating progressive.

Well, that's true.

These people are fighting for the ability to dismember living babies and pull them limb by limb out of their mother.

The Canaanites would stoke fires in the hollow portion of their idol statue of Moloch. Then they would place babies on his outstretched arm for them to burn alive. As the babies cried in pain they would beat drums to drown out their cries to keep the parents from hearing.

Kind of interesting that with babies being torn limb by limb in utero parents won't have to hear any cries.

I can't say with any authority but I bet they didn't kill anywhere near 63,000,000 babies.

(12-03-2021 09:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 07:13 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  Hopefully this speeds up our needed split. People who support, or want, abortions can move to the blue states that provide them. It can help concentrate the lefties in fewer areas.

Righties will still live in red states and travel to blue ones to get their abortions.

Maybe so, but the overall number of babies killed each year should drop dramatically.

Isn't 63 million dead babies enough?

Democrats enjoy killing black people--shows what Democrats really and actually think about them.

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

Gosh damn dude, thats not how this works at freaking all

Irregardless if I agree with you or not

Thats not how the SCOTUS works at all

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(12-03-2021 10:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 09:58 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 09:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 07:13 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  Hopefully this speeds up our needed split. People who support, or want, abortions can move to the blue states that provide them. It can help concentrate the lefties in fewer areas.

Righties will still live in red states and travel to blue ones to get their abortions.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but the overall number of babies killed each year should drop dramatically.

Isn't 63 million dead babies enough?

Not if you're a communist America hating progressive.

Well, that's true.

These people are fighting for the ability to dismember living babies and pull them limb by limb out of their mother.

The Canaanites would stoke fires in the hollow portion of their idol statue of Moloch. Then they would place babies on his outstretched arm for them to burn alive. As the babies cried in pain they would beat drums to drown out their cries to keep the parents from hearing.

Kind of interesting that with babies being torn limb by limb in utero parents won't have to hear any cries.

I can't say with any authority but I bet they didn't kill anywhere near 63,000,000 babies.

When I used to read this in the Old Testament I would think how horrible and feel sad for them. Allowing themselves to be led by Satan down this road. Then, I realized we have perfected the practice here in the US. May God have mercy on those who willfully destroy his creation.

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

I hope the court will do the right thing. But they have yet to prove they are for life and a states right to choose.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

The problem with the marriage issue is that it's an ongoing union.

If a couple can get married in Maine and then moves to Missouri the state has to recognize the union made in Maine even if its against state law. If you try to alter that things can get very messy fast

With abortion is a onetime action as opposed to a status. Therefore letting states regulate that action as they see fit makes sense and is essential to federalism

That's the reason to me we still fight about abortion 60 years later but the marriage issue is practically settled

(12-03-2021 10:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 09:58 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 09:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 07:13 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  Hopefully this speeds up our needed split. People who support, or want, abortions can move to the blue states that provide them. It can help concentrate the lefties in fewer areas.

Righties will still live in red states and travel to blue ones to get their abortions.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but the overall number of babies killed each year should drop dramatically.

Isn't 63 million dead babies enough?

Not if you're a communist America hating progressive.

Well, that's true.

These people are fighting for the ability to dismember living babies and pull them limb by limb out of their mother.

The Canaanites would stoke fires in the hollow portion of their idol statue of Moloch. Then they would place babies on his outstretched arm for them to burn alive. As the babies cried in pain they would beat drums to drown out their cries to keep the parents from hearing.

Kind of interesting that with babies being torn limb by limb in utero parents won't have to hear any cries.

I can't say with any authority but I bet they didn't kill anywhere near 63,000,000 babies.

Most in favor of abortion don't have a clue about this ancient practice. The only thing that's really changed is that modern women are sacrificing a child for a different "god" - themselves.

(12-07-2021 11:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

The problem with the marriage issue is that it's an ongoing union.

If a couple can get married in Maine and then moves to Missouri the state has to recognize the union made in Maine even if its against state law. If you try to alter that things can get very messy fast

With abortion is a onetime action as opposed to a status. Therefore letting states regulate that action as they see fit makes sense and is essential to federalism

That's the reason to me we still fight about abortion 60 years later but the marriage issue is practically settled

The federal government also likes to stick their nose into marriage with the IRS and other agencies

(12-07-2021 12:49 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 11:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

The problem with the marriage issue is that it's an ongoing union.

If a couple can get married in Maine and then moves to Missouri the state has to recognize the union made in Maine even if its against state law. If you try to alter that things can get very messy fast

With abortion is a onetime action as opposed to a status. Therefore letting states regulate that action as they see fit makes sense and is essential to federalism

That's the reason to me we still fight about abortion 60 years later but the marriage issue is practically settled

The federal government also likes to stick their nose into marriage with the IRS and other agencies

If the federal government wants to say that it recognizes gay marriage/civil unions for tax reporting, there's no issue with that.

If a state says it doesnt recognize it for their state reporting, there's no issue with that.

It is not a right that is governed by the constitution, so as such, the SC should stay out of it. Thats the valuable lesson they are dealing with on the Roe v Wade issue now.

(12-07-2021 12:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 12:49 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 11:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

The problem with the marriage issue is that it's an ongoing union.

If a couple can get married in Maine and then moves to Missouri the state has to recognize the union made in Maine even if its against state law. If you try to alter that things can get very messy fast

With abortion is a onetime action as opposed to a status. Therefore letting states regulate that action as they see fit makes sense and is essential to federalism

That's the reason to me we still fight about abortion 60 years later but the marriage issue is practically settled

The federal government also likes to stick their nose into marriage with the IRS and other agencies

If the federal government wants to say that it recognizes gay marriage/civil unions for tax reporting, there's no issue with that.

If a state says it doesnt recognize it for their state reporting, there's no issue with that.

It is not a right that is governed by the constitution, so as such, the SC should stay out of it. Thats the valuable lesson they are dealing with on the Roe v Wade issue now.

I agree in ref to RvW and I disagree with the SC ruling on gay marriage. It should have been handled by Congress in matters of the federal government and interstate commerce(mainly insurance and banking) long ago.

(12-07-2021 01:01 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 12:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 12:49 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-07-2021 11:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

The problem with the marriage issue is that it's an ongoing union.

If a couple can get married in Maine and then moves to Missouri the state has to recognize the union made in Maine even if its against state law. If you try to alter that things can get very messy fast

With abortion is a onetime action as opposed to a status. Therefore letting states regulate that action as they see fit makes sense and is essential to federalism

That's the reason to me we still fight about abortion 60 years later but the marriage issue is practically settled

The federal government also likes to stick their nose into marriage with the IRS and other agencies

If the federal government wants to say that it recognizes gay marriage/civil unions for tax reporting, there's no issue with that.

If a state says it doesnt recognize it for their state reporting, there's no issue with that.

It is not a right that is governed by the constitution, so as such, the SC should stay out of it. Thats the valuable lesson they are dealing with on the Roe v Wade issue now.

I agree in ref to RvW and I disagree with the SC ruling on gay marriage. It should have been handled by Congress in matters of the federal government and interstate commerce(mainly insurance and banking) long ago.

Its not interstate commerce though. As a couple, they are intra-state in one state, or move to another state and are intrastate there.

It all works out if it is based on law. If something doesnt work, you can change the law. If people change their minds you can change the law, as it should work.

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

It's amazing to watch brainwashed Republicans campaigning for bigger government control. Like it matters who takes away our rights? SERIOUSLY?! Who cares if it's state or federal government!

When they tried to take away liquor in the 1920's, do you think anyone cared who was doing it?! Everyone was just in on the corruption to by-pass it. Same with pot today and many other vice non-violent "crimes" that effect nobody but the person engaged in it. That is why the fundamental right to privacy is so important Constitutionally.

(12-07-2021 09:09 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-05-2021 02:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-03-2021 06:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(12-02-2021 03:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/th...roe-v-wade

Article suggests Roe v. Wade precedent is in trouble. I think Roe is one of the most egregious overreaches in court history, perhaps 2nd only to the gay marriage ruling.

But I worry that overturning it will energize Democrats who have nothing to be enthused about. It will be interesting.

If the ruling sets it at 15 weeks (or even 12 weeks) with clear wording it's not going any shorter than that PLUS with the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary situations, I'd be happy with that. My respect for this current court would greatly improve.

The court should NOT be ruling on the constitutionality of something thats not in the constitution, and instead is a factor of science. (Which changes)

15 weeks is stupid because that can change. You dont set constitutional precedent on something like that.

Instead, you fix Roe v Wade by tossing it out and allowing the states to enact laws that allow or disallow abortion. Laws are setup so that they can be changed with the times, as the people see fit.....as it should be. A constitutional right does not change. Its in cement.

The two very egregious current examples of something being deemed constitutional when the SC should have never taken them up (and left them to the states) are abortions and gay marriage. Both of these should be stricken.

It's amazing to watch brainwashed Republicans campaigning for bigger government control. Like it matters who takes away our rights? SERIOUSLY?! Who cares if it's state or federal government!

When they tried to take away liquor in the 1920's, do you think anyone cared who was doing it?! Everyone was just in on the corruption to by-pass it. Same with pot today and many other vice non-violent "crimes" that effect nobody but the person engaged in it. That is why the fundamental right to privacy is so important Constitutionally.

You have no f;ing idea what you are talking about. We are talking law vs constitutional rights. This has nothing to do with big or small government.

When are they expected to make a ruling on the most recent case?

(12-10-2021 08:31 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  When are they expected to make a ruling on the most recent case?

June 2022 - I believe

I wish republicans cared as much about the economy and taxes and the budget and national defense as they do about abortion and gay rights. I am with the republicans on those first four issues (although they don't go far enough on any of them to suit me). Abortion and gay rights are not the hills I want them to die on, but those seem to be the only issues that energize them.

Half a dozen or more state legislatures stood by all summer of 2020 and let voting procedures be put into place that pretty much guaranteed that we will never know whether the 2020 election was fairly decided or not. To be clear, I am not saying that the 2020 elections were definitely stolen, I am saying that I don't know and you don't know, because we have no way of knowing whether they were or not. Now we have Biden nominees being confirmed with republican senators voting to confirm them in double figures. Every Biden nominee should be a 50-50 vote with Kamala the **** breaking the ties. Republicans don't know how to get what they want when they govern, and they don't have a clue how to be an opposition. And they are all that is standing between us and the socialist/communist/fascist (yes I used all three words, and I meant all three, they're basically three peas in the same totalitarian pod, and I can back all three up) democrats.

Right on most, but if Republican's die on gay rights, that'll be pretty disappointing considering that's largely settled other than a couple trans issues that are worth fighting for.