USSC strikes down Roe v Wade
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
No, they didn't set the precedent. Two before her were sitting at 90 and there are a handful of others in the mid-80s before her.
I know you want to score "gotchas" but try to at least put a little effort in.
You look like the fraud you are this way.
And yes, once Trump won they urged her to stay in because they didn't want him picking the replacement.
The new standard is that if the President doesn't control the senate, they will never be allowed to seat a replacement again.
This is broken, and we will have to see how it plays out.
Time to set up shop for drive through abortion clinics ? It could be like jiffy lube. Drive in, your boyfriend or husband can grab a beer at the local pub and voila all done. It would be a big hit in border towns like Windsor.
Dictatorships allow the worst of society to become rich and powerful.
But it is included in "woke" when people are using that.
That you don't want to include it (doubtful) isn't really the point.
We agree.
The GOP propaganda pretending all kinds of nonsense is working and the Supreme Court is a reactionary bunch of unlawful goons who will strike down or support policies based on what they and Fox News prefer as opposed to actual legal theory.
It's identity politics all the way for the GOP, with the caveat that it can't interfere with making rich people richer and more powerful and gutting voting rights.
Most people don't support those things.
That's why the GOP invented them.
If the Democrats won't support fake outrages the GOP wants them to support, the GOP will make it up and lie to people gullible enough to fall for it, such as yourself.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?You have been warned, and not just by some no name on a Terb forum, but by Hillary Clinton herself......
Clinton warns Democrats' focus on trans issues could cost them 2024
Hillary Clinton warned that Democrats' insistence on focusing on transgender issues and spending their time condemning JK Rowling could cost them the 2024 election.www.dailymail.co.uk
The ones obsessing over trans issues are the GOP.
And they are doing a good job.
Look how easily their mind virus has fucked with you.
If I thought for a minute this was a true statement, I'd be interested.
But you are pretty clearly a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
You may have a couple of culture war issues you think the Biblical wing has "gone too far on" (doubtful) but I can't imagine a conservative policy of note you wouldn't support.
Samuel Jackson nails the SC.
If you're going to be all originalist you're going to have say why interracial marriages should be treated to different logic.
If you're going to be all originalist you're going to have say why interracial marriages should be treated to different logic.
Yes, I did. Somebody had to bring some intellect and rational thought to the debate.
"a minimum of 94.2% are performed to preserve the mother’s lifestyle or to please those close to her." I think buried in the "preserve the mother's lifestyle or to please those close to her" is aborted because the fetus is the "wrong" gender.
While not perfect, I think the current Irish model is a reasonable compromise between those who want unfettered access to abortions and those who don't want abortions under any circumstance.
Abortion in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia
I guess she believed the BS that Hillary would win and could never lose. They all thought she was going to be crowned.
The frauds are out again. Nowhere is abortion written down as a human right. The bible thumpers may even have a better argument of right to life for a living entity on life support. I support it abortion anyways.
Now the same old fraudulent tying in to violence(Do you mean like BLM or releasing criminals earlier?). And of course the fraudulent nazi comparison.
That is because you are a fraud. I have already said multiple times that I support abortion, right up to as late as safely possible.
You destroy your credibility with fraudulent statements.
If you google feminists and transgender, you will find that a significant amount of feminists are extremely opposed. After all, it should be no surprise that a significant percentage of women don't want a bunch of guys saying they are girls in their washroom/changeroom/opposing sports teams). The rest of the goading/foolishness in your statement suggests that the woke left is foolishly going to triple down on wokism. Well, it is what it is and I can't change that. As much as I support abortion access, it is not my personal highest priority. If it falls by the wayside with a new national law because the dems got voted out en masse for tying themselves to the woke left, then it will be what it is. it is a price well worth paying(in my opinion) to get these awful people out of power.
Czar: Extremely good at reading comprehension....which is why I have destroyed the credibility of so many leftie frauds on this forum.
Compare to the hardcore lefties on the Board, he is actually a moderate lefty who actually makes an effort to debate instead of saying you are full of shit like some others.
I think the U.S. system works remarkably well (Almost as well as the Montreal system. Hee, hee).
The pendulum swings left and right. Trump just happened to come along at a time when the lefties swung so far left they were almost falling into the Pacific Ocean. So, intelligent, rational Dems either didn't vote or maybe even voted Trump.
Just like Ontario the hard working, law abiding and tax paying POC's are the fastest growing demographics in the U.S. and they lean strongly towards conservative values.
As for the SCOTUS, maybe it was/is time for new blood.
Question: Is Biden's attempt to game the system by expanding the court to 13 justices DOA?
The pendulum swings left and right. Trump just happened to come along at a time when the lefties swung so far left they were almost falling into the Pacific Ocean. So, intelligent, rational Dems either didn't vote or maybe even voted Trump.
Just like Ontario the hard working, law abiding and tax paying POC's are the fastest growing demographics in the U.S. and they lean strongly towards conservative values.
As for the SCOTUS, maybe it was/is time for new blood.
Question: Is Biden's attempt to game the system by expanding the court to 13 justices DOA?
No he doesn't.
"Originalist" is just code for "whatever bullshit we decide".
The fact that it is incoherent and contradictory is part of the point.
It's like Trump's stupider lies - the fact they can do it despite it being so obvious shows off their power.
Thomas didn't signal for a case on Loving because he doesn't want one.
The others will probably not take any such case until Thomas is dead. Then they can overturn Loving if they feel like it.
Even if a case comes up that does allow them to overturn it, maybe Thomas votes against it or maybe they just make a decision that doesn't affect existing marriages for 5 years or 10 or however long Thomas thinks he will be alive.
We aren't talking about legal logic anymore - they have announced they don't even feel the need to pretend to care about that anymore.
"Fuck you, that's why" is the only standard.
I'm still trying to see your point.
We believe the woman has a right to choose.
Is your argument "No, not if she chooses something I don't agree with?"
Why would I care about your qualms?
I feel like you think you have some "gotcha" here but I just don't see it.
What parts do you think need to be improved?
What nonsense are you talking about now?
This was 2013, before they lost the Senate. Once they lost the Senate it became a moot point once McConnel made clear he would never allow a vote on a replacement.
At that point retiring would have accomplished nothing and once Trump was in place it would accomplish even less.
The fault was hers (and, let's be honest, Breyer's but we don't mention him as much because he was pretty mediocre so he gets forgotten) for not retiring then.
We almost didn't get Breyer to retire, because he also wanted to stay.
Of the conservative justices, I don't expect Thomas to retire if he can help it - he strikes me as someone who wants to die on the court. (Although he might retire at 86 since he famously said that he wanted to make Liberals suffer for 43 years.) The others will all retire strategically if they can, in their 70s, I expect.
What are you even babbling about?
I am glad you think the Right wing's appeal to violence do you feel is fradulent. It should be considered that in a democratic society.
What aspects of the Nazi comparison do you consider fradulent?
Yes, you have said it repeatedly.
I have no reason to believe it given your other statements on the board.
Just to clarify, "right up to as late as safely possible" means you support abortion for any reason whatsoever at any point where the abortion will not put the woman at risk?
What does this have to do with your false idea that the Democrats are focusing exclusively or excessively on trans issues?
That people have opinions on all sorts of issues that are not the main focus of political parties isn't surprising - even if trans issues is a major focus of the GOP.
The left isn't focusing on "wokism" - "wokism" is a focus of the Right almost exclusively.
That brings up an interesting thing.
What do you support?
You have said you support some, but not all, conservative positions.
You claim one such position you disagree with the Conservative focus on (but not enough to vote about it) is access to abortion.
You also claim that "wokism" is so terrible that the Dems should lose over it, but say nothing about positions you actually want to see implemented.
In case my position isn't clear, I fully believe that you support virtually all Conservative positions so therefore would never vote Dem anyway, so all this talk of "they lost me with wokism" is bullshit.
So tell me what positions the Dems support that you support but just not enough in the face of all this "wokism".
I do kind of admire your complete lack of self-awareness sometimes.
Must be a fun life to be so clueless.
In what way?
That one party doesn't always win is bare minimum and not very indicative of the system working.
What parts do you think work well that are specific to the American system?
It was.
This may have reinvigorated it.
Going back to the historical precedent of "one justice per circuit" would be smart, and allow for reasonable adjustments in the future, but people didn't want to rock the boat more than they had to.
The court deciding to stop pretending to not be lawless may change that.
Roberts does not always vote along party lines. Example, Obama Care. The GOP tried to use the Supreme Court to kill the Affordable Health Care Act and it was Roberts who was the deciding vote in favour of Obama Care. And now we see Roberts voting to keep Roe. That makes him a bit of maverick in my eyes and not someone who votes down party lines, at least not on
As to the Democrats and the White vote, it was not "the White Vote" that propelled Biden to the White House in 2020. "The White Vote" is not a homogeneous group. Never has been.
If you look at 2020, the vote was virtually IDENTICAL to 2016. Blacks in 2020 voted as they did in 2016. Same for hispanics, same for city folks, same for rual voters. All except for ONE GROUP of distinct voters who flipped.
The suburb vote.
In terms of aggregate votes in these large suburban counties, there was a shift from a 1.2 million vote advantage for Trump in 2016 to (at last count) a 613,000 vote advantage for Biden—a nearly 2 million vote flip. (Quote Link =https://www.brookings.edu/research/bidens-victory-came-from-the-suburbs/)
That vote flip was huge and propelled Biden to the White House. Why? I don't know. Maybe they just had had enough of a raving lunatic for president. One thing is for sure, they aren't married to one political party or another.
Only one identifiable group.
Without the burbs, Biden would have lost.
No fraud here. Only proof that you are the one that doesn't comprehend. The precedent I was talking about was not the age of earlier justices, it was the leftie frauds calling on someone of Ginsburg's age not to retire, and then subsequently doing so when it just so happens that it could be beneficial to them. Which you admit was stated in the next paragraph below.
I guess the frauds are desperate and trying to accuse those who prove them to be frauds as frauds.
Don't worry Valcazar...I will make an error at some point. But if proven factually wrong, I will admit it.
