the court was liberal for 50 years. It’s not carved in stone it must be so forever. Elections have consequences.

Why are you ok with unelected bureaucrats setting national policy? isn’t it better if elected legislators enact policy, so that we can respond at election time?

Again, you seem to have a real issue with the conceit of a representative democratic republic.

if everyone agrees with you in abortion,,it will be available in all 50 states. If not, it won’t be available in all 50 states.

I don’t think CT should have an income tax, but not nearly a majority agrees with me, so i don’t get my way. and why should i? who am i to be able to impose my beliefs on others?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines

This pic sums it up ..

Let's be clear: the Court can talk all it like about the alleged democratic deficiency of administrative agencies (although: pot, kettle), but this is fundamentally a Congress-disempowering doctrine. It makes it nearly impossible for Congress to pass laws accomplishing its goals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that pic is true. any and all babies given up for adoption, will be adopted. older
kids in foster don’t do as well, but that has nothing to do with abortion, as babies get aborted not older kids. babies don’t languish in foster care.

swing and a miss.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s not even close to being true. it empowers the legislature.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad it wasn’t a tweet, different set of rules for those :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shocking no examples
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you missed his point completely. you guys go berserk over trump’s tweets, you’d never dismiss any of his tweets by saying “free speech.”

He proved you’re a hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep tweets from a mayor are the same as tweets from the POTUS

The false equivalence king strikes again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the mayor of chicago has free speech, not the president.

got it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like arguing with a cinder block
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can regulate a pregnant body but not a coal plant. You can control the free speech of a teacher but not the money-as-speech of a corporation. You can coerce a child to pray in school but you can’t keep guns out of their classroom. What a world this Supreme Court is making.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right, i’m
sure there are zero regulations on coal plants

there are all kinds of laws in the books that limit what folks can do with their bodies. Boils
down to, you can’t hurt someone else.

Where’s the evidence kids were pressured to pray? that would be illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are just babbling continuous nonsensical talking points.....but you are the unthinking cult member :laugha:

THIS IS THE FUTURE THAT CONSERVATIVES WANT

The Christian Republic of Texas.
The Catholic State of Missouri.
The Evangelical Commonwealth of Virginia.

This is it. This is where it's all been going, and at this pace they could have it by the end of the next SCOTUS term.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty sure the Court's adherence to the Constitution would not allow that...but keep fantasizing...

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v Harper, an appeal advocating for extreme interpretation of the Constitution that could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress the vote, draw unfair election districts, enable partisan interference in ballot counting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are beyond desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if SCOTUS is simply a tool to enact conservative principles, please explain why they did hand Biden a big win this week, when they upheld Bidens intent to allow Trumps “remain in Mexico” policy to end

Conservatives really want that to continue, this supreme court said Biden could end it.

Please explain why SCOTUS did this Pete, if they’re just a bunch of conservative activists?

I’ll wait. You have fun with that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you read the decision you’ll find that what SCOTUS ruled was that the judge couldn’t act as an administrator, do you think judges should?
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone conceded during an exchange with Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday morning while the Supreme Court was hearing the case, under Kacsmaryk’s reading of federal law, no administration has ever complied with that law since it was enacted in 1996.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths.

Yep the ruling was only about abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paxton said he may move against gay rights next. That is one of the reasons why all the bigots have been moving to Tx.

Wiman and their magic vaginas

In the aftermath of the US supreme court decision that ended the right to abortion, amid nationwide protests over the removal of women’s control over their own bodies, one Utah Republican said women could “control [their] intake of semen”.

The comment by Karianne Lisonbee, a state representative, came in response to an assertion that men should be held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, not just pregnant women, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

“I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men’s ejaculations and not women’s pregnancies,” Lisonbee said.

She added: “I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”

Republican Senators on Twitter today admitting that their strategy was to pack the courts with political conservatives in order to enact an agenda that was too unpopular to pass through an elected, popularly accountable Congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) it did not end the right to abortion. It sent the question to the states, where per the constitution it belongs.

(2) women have long had limits on what they can do with their bodies, in particular they cannot use their body in a way that harms someone else. There’s no controversy over laws that prevent female teachers from sleeping with male students. So there are already laws in the books that limit the choices women can make with their own bodies, when those choices would harm someone else. And no one protests those laws.

Am I responsible for what a Utah state senator says Paul? If so, are t you responsible for US Rep Hank Johnson saying Guam
might tip over if we build on it? Or for Hilary saying that her husbands victims were looney tunes narcissists? Or for biden saying republicans want to put blacks in chains?

Either we’re responsible for the lunatics in our side, or we’re not. But it applies equally to both of us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's not forget who started the thread

why bring up a vile ( and it is vile) quote from a state senator from the other side of the country? what were you trying to accomplish?

plenty of nuts in both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s fair.

Maxine Waters isnt a state senator from utah who no one has ever heard of. And she’s telling people
to defy federal rulings because she didn’t get what she wanted.

but that as a very fair comeback, your point was. sincerely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP agenda - criminalize abortion, ban gun control, deregulate business, and pollute more - is super unpopular.

So Republicans stopped trying to enact it in law and instead nominated politicians to the bench to get their agenda enacted by the unelected, unaccountable branch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device