if Trump is as shrewd as I think he is, she will be his choice.

A highly regarded federal judge, a constitutionalist, a female.

Best of all, she's a devout Catholic, which the anti-Catholic bigots Diane Feinstein and Al Franken tried to use to disqualify her at her confirmation hearings, saying "the dogma is loud within you". To these liberal bigots, it's OK if your conscience is informed by marxist Ivy League professors or by watching MSNBC, but it's not OK if your conscience is informed by Catholicism. Nominating her, would be a marvelous middle finger to these people.

Barrett is also the poster child for a judge who the left would fear would overturn Roe V Wade - a Catholic with seven kids. Whether or not she would actually vote that way is unknown (probably not), but she looks exactly like someone who would, and that will be enough to open the floodgates of liberal hysteria.

The left would go absolutely berserk at her nomination, the venom and hate with which they would attack her, would show exactly how bigoted, hateful, and anti-woman they really are, and would reap immense political capital for the GOP. It also would likely not prevent her from getting confirmed, she'd even be likely to get a few democratic votes from senators in purple states who are up for re-election, and who need to be seen as moderate (Munchin in WV, Heidi what's-her-name in ND, etc).

Politically speaking, it would be like winning powerball. And oh, the schadenfreude. We will see in a week or so. Hopefully she's up for the fight, because whoever it is, the confirmation will be as ugly as anything we have seen. The left have their tin foil hats on, and are foaming at the mouth.

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born :love:

Hand check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born :love:

You keep saying that. It’s a great bumper sticker. Zero truth to it, so you should be happy. Conservatives are generous and charitable, think of the role religion plays on each side, you’ll understand why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.

At the present time, I have so little to be angry about. You are confusing winning with anger.

Watch the confirmation hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At the present time, I have so little to be angry about. You are confusing winning with anger.

Watch the confirmation hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




Don't be smug. And fer crying out loud don't be Progressive Level Smug :lama:

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born :love:

Exactly right. Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor. Lower taxes, where the majority of the reduction goes to the rich and then cut the safety net. Again and again we see the same playbook.

Don't be smug. And fer crying out loud don't be Progressive Level Smug :lama:

Noted. And agreed.

Exactly right. Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor. Lower taxes, where the majority of the reduction goes to the rich and then cut the safety net. Again and again we see the same playbook.

"Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor"

Bill Clinton cut taxes and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare. He helped fuel the tech boom of the 1990s, which made God only knows how many people, very wealthy. How come he's a liberal hero? How come you'd never accuse him of hurting the poor?

Unemployment is way down, black unemployment has never been lower. Many more poor people now pay zero federal income tax (they doubled the standard deduction).

When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthy more than it helps the poor, because the wealthy have more disposable income to invest, which allows them to capitalize on the growth. That is not a Republican creation, it is elementary school arithmetic.

Now, we can debate whether or not the tax cuts should have done less for the wealthy, less for corporations, and more for the poor. We can debate that, and you would be able to make some very valid points that I might agree with. It didn't "hurt the" poor, maybe it didn't help them as much as it could have.

If liberalism is better for the poor, that would explain the liberal utopias of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc. These are cities that have been controlled by liberals for a generation, in a fabulously wealthy state controlled by liberals for a generation, and the people in those cities are far worse off than they were 30 years ago. Any of that not true?

Why do so many poor people risk their lives to come here, even when conservatives are running the show?

In any event, way off topic. Watch what happens during the confirmation hearings, of whomever Hitler picks to be the next justice. Especially if it's a woman. Yet supposedly it's my side that has declared 'war on women'.

Best of all, she's a devout Catholic, which the anti-Catholic bigots Diane Feinstein and Al Franken tried to use to disqualify her at her confirmation hearings, saying "the dogma is loud within you". To these liberal bigots, it's OK if your conscience is informed by marxist Ivy League professors or by watching MSNBC, but it's not OK if your conscience is informed by Catholicism.

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.

Nominating her, would be a marvelous middle finger to these people.
Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?

Barrett is also the poster child for a judge who the left would fear would overturn Roe V Wade - a Catholic with seven kids. Whether or not she would actually vote that way is unknown (probably not), but she looks exactly like someone who would, and that will be enough to open the floodgates of liberal hysteria.
It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.
By at least an order of magnitude or more.

In any event, way off topic. Watch what happens during the confirmation hearings, of whomever Hitler picks to be the next justice. Especially if it's a woman. Yet supposedly it's my side that has declared 'war on women'.
Is that a Freudian slip or calling a spade a spade?

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.


Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

"Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings"

Into her personal writings, or judicial opinions? Huge difference. Here is one thing she wrote...

"judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She wrote that as a law student, it's exactly correct. She is saying judges should rely on the law. The horror!!!

"Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence"

Oh. So if a conservative judge makes a mistake, you are in favor of living with that mistake forever. Because of precedence.

"working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here..."

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

So you have issues with questioning like this?

"I've read some of what you've written on Catholic judges in capital cases and, in particular, as I understand it, you argued that Catholic judges are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty".

"A little bit narrower than that," Barrett said.

"I was going to ask you to just please explain your views on that, because that obviously is of relevance to the job for which you have been nominated,"

So you have issues with questioning like this?

Why on Earth should a catholic judge be precluded from hearing a case on the death penalty. The whole point of judges, is that they are supposed to leave their personal opinions on the courthouse steps, and base decisions only on the constitution.

Being Catholic, doesn't mean you cannot objectively evaluate the constitutionality of a case.

Look at her quote I posted, she specifically said that judges cannot try to force the US Constitution to try and fit nicely into Catholicism.

Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


t.

Not at all. But it would be a marvelous bonus.

Is that a Freudian slip or calling a spade a spade?

Neither. It was consciously making fun of the left.

Neither. It was consciously making fun of the left.
It was a devastating take down Jim. The liberal ecosystem has been rendered devoid of air, just dishonest lifeless zombies struggling for their last breath. It must have felt good to drink that much blood. Winning!

I honor your effort for the cause with a picture of Elizabeth Warren and her new puppy.

It was a devastating take down Jim. The liberal ecosystem has been rendered devoid of air, just dishonest lifeless zombies struggling for their last breath. It must have felt good to drink that much blood. Winning!

I honor your effort for the cause with a picture of Elizabeth Warren and her new puppy.

Fortunately for me, I'm not concerned with the opinions of someone who implies that Trumps admittedly awful rhetoric, is responsible for the actions of a lunatic who made good on threats made many years ago. When I say something that indefensible, than you can lecture me on civics, but it will never, ever happen.

Very, very cute puppy. Is she claiming it's a native American pup for some kind of economic gain?

That pup pic actually humanizes that tampon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why on Earth should a catholic judge be precluded from hearing a case on the death penalty. The whole point of judges, is that they are supposed to leave their personal opinions on the courthouse steps, and base decisions only on the constitution.

Being Catholic, doesn't mean you cannot objectively evaluate the constitutionality of a case.

Look at her quote I posted, she specifically said that judges cannot try to force the US Constitution to try and fit nicely into Catholicism.
She wrote a paper about it, questions are fair game. Those questions were from Ted Cruze by the way. Doesn't seem like anyone cared if Republicans brought up her religion.

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.
So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?
The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence what did she write that you have a problem with, and why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"

If liberalism is better for the poor, that would explain the liberal utopias of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc. These are cities that have been controlled by liberals for a generation, in a fabulously wealthy state controlled by liberals for a generation, and the people in those cities are far worse off than they were 30 years ago. Any of that not true?



You are constantly making specious arguments. How does your brain deal with the fact that 14 out of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are all strongly red; all take in way more in federal tax than they pay in (unlike the trend in blue states); have worse health care, education etc. Any specious explanations for that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's why we have SCOTUS judges. They are not supposed to be swayed by what a majority of Americans want. They are supposed to "interpret" the Constitution, not public opinion. Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because abortion is bad or good, but because the federal government has no actual constitutional power to forbid abortion nor to legalize it.

As far as stare decisis is concerned, that should not apply to precedents that are unconstitutional. It is precisely destructive of the Constitution to load it with unconstitutional precedent. And it is precisely for that reason that unconstitutional precedent should be struck down. If precedent creates permanent "settled law," then we would still have slavery. Amendments and Supreme Court cases overturned several supposedly "settled laws," and rightly so.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not put an end to abortion. Constitutionally, the legality of abortion rests with the states. The women You trust on earth to make that decision would have the opportunity, state by state, to help decide it. It is very probable that a majority, maybe a large one, of States will legally allow abortion. For women in states where the people vote against legalization, there will be many choices of where to legally get an abortion.

You are constantly making specious arguments. How does your brain deal with the fact that 14 out of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are all strongly red; all take in way more in federal tax than they pay in (unlike the trend in blue states); have worse health care, education etc. Any specious explanations for that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, but, but the taxes are lower.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.

"I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution?"

Correct. I said that, and I stand by it.

"Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law."

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.

.

I’d like to see pro life people sponsor a child till they are 18. Better yet, why not financially support the single mom and her kid so that they can have a decent quality of life. But instead.. it’s F-you welfare whore... get a job. And while she’s at work the kid is locked up at home playing call of duty. And we all wonder why kids are so screwed up these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned"

I don't think it will be overturned. I said I think Amy Barrett should bee the nominee for other reasons.

"40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned."

Ahh, precedent. Slavery was legal. So was segregation. According to you and Spence, once SCOTUS settled these issues, we should have stopped debating. Right? We should have just dropped it? Try making that wrong. Go ahead, and try to respond to that.

Earth to you and Spence...the SCOTUS is capable of royally screwing up. They are human. There is nothing that says their rulings are carved in stone forever.

"The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in"

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

"I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim"

Who is asking you to trust me? There are lots and lots of women opposed to it. Are they all self-loathing masochists? Or go watch a hi-def ultrasound of a 4 month old baby, and tell me that it's no more alive than a mole or a tattoo to be removed.

"He thinks he can't have more kids"

Well my urologist went to Harvard, and he gave me the old snip-snip, so it's not some crazy theory of mine that I can't have any more kids. Not sure where the hell you got that idea.

"Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have"

You must be some theology scholar! Please tell me, what church tells its members how many kids to have? I am unaware of one that does so, sure as hell not my church. Please enlighten me!

I’d like to see pro life people sponsor a child till they are 18. Better yet, why not financially support the single mom and her kid so that they can have a decent quality of life. But instead.. it’s F-you welfare whore... get a job. And while she’s at work the kid is locked up at home playing call of duty. And we all wonder why kids are so screwed up these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I’d like to see pro life people sponsor a child till they are 18"

Oh give me a break. I'd like to see you take in a family of refugees who don't speak English. Using your logic, until you are prepared to do so, you can't advocate for the rights of refugees.

"Better yet, why not financially support the single mom and her kid so that they can have a decent quality of life."

I do that. I pay federal taxes to support such programs, I pay state taxes to support such programs, and I give money to my church to support such programs. If we need more money for those programs, let's cut stupid wasteful spending which helps nobody, and transfer that money to fund the programs you describe. I'm all for that.

"But instead.. it’s F-you welfare whore... get a job"

Never heard anybody say that. Well, Bill Clinton sort of said that, and he's still a hero of the left. I keep asking for someone to explain why that is, and nobody even tries. Can you?

"And we all wonder why kids are so screwed up these days."

Liberals wonder why. Conservatives know why. erosion of family values, which while they seem antiquated to liberals, they have been shown to work. An inconvenient truth.

.And while she’s at work the kid is locked up at home playing call of duty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he's at the park with Dad, throwing a baseball around.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.



You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

Correct, something doesn’t have to be explicitly in there to be constitutional. But connecting search and seizure with abortion? Evil Kineval couldn’t make that leap. I guess the difference between sound judgment and radical judicial activism, has to do with how far you are willing to stretch the bounds of common sense. As you say, a sinister genius can be quite effective in this regard.

I’m curious to see who he picks. I also wonder if Clarence Thomas is giving any thought to retiring while the gop has the White House and senate. Ginsberg screwed up royally by not retiring when obama was in office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.
Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning :doh:

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.

Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning :doh:

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.

Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.

It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The supreme Court ruled on right to abortion up until viability. The time frame has moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 22 or 23 weeks. Nothing has changed that should allow for overturning that ruling. The supreme Court did not make a mistake just because it offends the morals of some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The supreme Court ruled on right to abortion up until viability. The time frame has moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 22 or 23 weeks. Nothing has changed that should allow for overturning that ruling. The supreme Court did not make a mistake just because it offends the morals of some.

Not every baby achieves viability at the same time. And if the justification for abortion is that the woman has the right to bodily self autonomy, why does she surrendernthatbat some arbitrary point? That makes zero sense, the baby is never any different than it was an hour before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.

It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process .

True.

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.

It would be easy in this day and age for states to make it legal, which most probably would. Abortion legality is not the primary consideration. It's most importantly about maintaining the constitutional order and keeping political power where it belongs--the people, not the Court.

The Court's decision in Roe rested on a misreading of various portions and amendments in the Constitution. A Court revisit of the matter could correctly return power over a hotly disputed societal issue back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It has hardly changed. Awesome advances have made it so viability has improved by a week or so in a limited percentage of cases. Nothing in that to change roe v. Wade. Appreciate you confirming that though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.

There seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what various pundits on the left are worried about re the future of Roe v. Wade and abortion if Trump can stack the court in favor strict construction originalists:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-decries-trumps-frightening-views-on-abortion-over-scotus-news/

If 45 years ago I’d have said that in 2018 abortion would be permitted in Ireland and they will be trying to outlaw it in the USA you’d have thought I was nuts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If 45 years ago I’d have said that in 2018 abortion would be permitted in Ireland and they will be trying to outlaw it in the USA you’d have thought I was nuts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . .

R v W IMO is here to stay. Those wishing to terminate their potential children is ingrained in our culture. To many women it's an agonizing decision, but sadly many others use it as a routine method of birth control.

But what could come into play in the SC is tax payer funding of organizations that perform abortions. If you want to terminate your child you shouldn't depend on others to pay for it.

But what could come into play in the SC is tax payer funding of organizations that perform abortions. If you want to terminate your child you shouldn't depend on others to pay for it.
It's worth noting though that taxpayer funding of abortions is already illegal.

It's worth noting though that taxpayer funding of abortions is already illegal.

Yes, I'm thinking the Planned Parenthood defunding issue. I'm sure if it were defunded the case would rise to the SC.

Yes, I'm thinking the Planned Parenthood defunding issue. I'm sure if it were defunded the case would rise to the SC.
The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitals perform abortions as well...

I think we can all find some humor here, except maybe the Super Elite
https://thenib.com/socialist-surprise?utm_campaign=web-share-links&utm_medium=social&utm_source=link

The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitals perform abortions as well...

Understood.

This would be a brilliant idea.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) privately urged President Trump in a phone call earlier this week to nominate federal Judge Merrick B. Garland, then President Barack Obama’s third nominee to the Supreme Court who was summarily shunned by Senate Republicans in 2016, to replace retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schumer-urges-trump-to-tap-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court/2018/07/05/ca12f0be-805e-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.60e1575f446c

The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitaabortions as well...

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

This would be a brilliant idea.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schumer-urges-trump-to-tap-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court/2018/07/05/ca12f0be-805e-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.60e1575f446c

Coming from the guy who thinks that GOP presidential nominees should pick extremely liberal democrats, as their VP pick.

A good idea for you. A laughable suggestion for me, and I can't imagine Trump's response, but it probably ends with, "and the horse you rode in on".

This would be a brilliant idea.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schumer-urges-trump-to-tap-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court/2018/07/05/ca12f0be-805e-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.60e1575f446c

Meanwhile, the unofficial list of 3 finalists includes the name Amy Barrett, but sadly omits the name Merrick Garland.

We need more such, like Gore-such.

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.
But the feds don't give PP cash to buy equipment. They're also a non-profit organization so it's not like profit from a health screening could be used to offset abortion costs.

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.
Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/08/23/state-pulls-4-million-from-program-trying-to-replace-planned-parenthood

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/08/23/state-pulls-4-million-from-program-trying-to-replace-planned-parenthood

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.
Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

"The net result is people without means can't afford contraception"

Please tell me, who can't afford condoms? I keep hearing of all these people who can't afford birth control, and it makes no sense.

"the burden on taxpayers goes up"

If it means keeping babies alive, raise my taxes.

This would be a brilliant idea.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schumer-urges-trump-to-tap-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court/2018/07/05/ca12f0be-805e-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.60e1575f446c


Sure, just like Bill Clinton nominated Robert Bork after he was elected, right?

Why not just suggest that all Republicans who win elections at any level, step down and hand the office over to the democrat? Would that make you happy?

If elections have consequences when Obama wins, then elections have consequences when Trump wins.

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.
Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

Perhaps you have not noticed. Not all states act the way Spence thinks they should or would. And states can't print money. They have tighter budgetary restrictions. And its amazing how most people are able to do things like having less children or "afford" contraceptives when there is no sugar daddy paying for it.

And abortion and the burden or joy of having children are individual and state by state concerns. They are not, constitutionally, federal concerns.

I asked you a few times before if you believe states are necessary. If it would be better, more efficient, if we dissolved state governments, state sovereignty, and have only one unitary state, the so-called federal government. We could even do away with the Constitution, which limits the central government, and have the all powerful government which can do whatever is required to make life good and comfortable for us all.

Care to give an opinion on that question?