when you can’t win according to the rules, throw a tantrum and change the rules…

[Jim in CT]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...court-abortion

[spence]

I listened to almost all of the oral arguments and was utterly effing dismayed by what I heard from the conservative justices who pretty much unilaterally flip flopped from the positions on precedent they testified to during their confirmation hearings.

This ruling has the potential to invalidate the credibility of the Supreme Court.

[wdmso]

The new court ! if it’s not written in the constitution it’s can be overturned

And states should be allowed to discriminate if they decide or their voters decide ..

Seems half this country isn’t interested in the future just a past that never existed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I listened to almost all of the oral arguments and was utterly effing dismayed by what I heard from the conservative justices who pretty much unilaterally flip flopped from the positions on precedent they testified to during their confirmation hearings.

This ruling has the potential to invalidate the credibility of the Supreme Court.

was it wrong when judges reversed precedent on slavery and segregation? where do people
get the idea that once there’s a precedent, that it’s carved in stone?

every line real argument i’ve heard this week, has to do with how intrusive it would be to moms if restrictions are implemented. the supreme court doesn’t care about that. they only care about whether or not it’s constitutional.

i don’t deny that any restrictions would be burdensome on women. but if you think on the court is supposed to decide cases based on what makes life easier for who, you need to take a civics class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The new court ! if it’s not written in the constitution it’s can be overturned

And states should be allowed to discriminate if they decide or their voters decide ..

Seems half this country isn’t interested in the future just a past that never existed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

gibberish.

the constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination. the word abortion isn’t in there, which can easily be interpreted as meaning it’s a state issue. it’s not a crazy position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

was it wrong when judges reversed precedent on slavery and segregation? where do people
get the idea that once there’s a precedent, that it’s carved in stone?

You're referring to cases that are regarded as the worst in history where significant changes in our country have taken place. Roe wasn't perfect but Casey validated it along with countless associated cases. Not much has changed since Roe and the public opinion strongly supports it.

I don't think they will overturn it to be honest, the disruption to our system would be huge, it would dominate every Gov race for the next 20 years, I really don't think Roberts wants this as his legacy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're referring to cases that are regarded as the worst in history where significant changes in our country have taken place. Roe wasn't perfect but Casey validated it along with countless associated cases. Not much has changed since Roe and the public opinion strongly supports it.

I don't think they will overturn it to be honest, the disruption to our system would be huge, it would dominate every Gov race for the next 20 years, I really don't think Roberts wants this as his legacy.

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Oh sorry I thought this thread was about election laws and how elections are certified in the states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

when you can’t win according to the rules, throw a tantrum and change the rules…


Kind of like how Mitch McConnell changed the rules to stack the court with conservatives. So classy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

when you can’t win according to the rules, throw a tantrum and change the rules…


Kind of like how Mitch McConnell changed the rules to stack the court with conservatives. So classy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no he did not. he followed something called the biden tule. when biden was a senator, he specifically said that if. president bush tried nominating a supreme court justice near the end of his term, the senate should block him. they named it the biden rule. mcconnell just implemented it.

i think garland should have had a hearing, and then rejected. But mcconnell followed what had already been known as the biden rule, and that’s a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Oh sorry I thought this thread was about election laws and how elections are certified in the states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

states have always been able to do what they want with their elections. liberals
want to federalize that as well, in places wheeee they don’t do well.

Paul, what’s racist about voter id laws? do the laws say blacks have to pay more for their ids? do they have to travel
further to get them? wait in longer lines?

the surest way to guarantee honest results are in person voting when possible, and voter ids. you can’t deny that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to overturn the abortion ban by 66.4% to 33.6%.

But Republicans want to go backwards in time .. twisting science when it’s convenient and ignoring it when it’s inconvenient


You will never see abortion ban on any Red states ballot as a referendum Or ballot initiative.. why because it will lose ….

Vaccine mandates in Republicans and conservatives eyes

Is Government Control and an attack on freedom

But conservatives and Republicans on Abortion is about life … not control.

Jim seeing this issues thru religious glasses is as dishonest as it gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no he did not. he followed something called the biden tule. when biden was a senator, he specifically said that if. president bush tried nominating a supreme court justice near the end of his term, the senate should block him. they named it the biden rule. mcconnell just implemented it.

i think garland should have had a hearing, and then rejected. But mcconnell followed what had already been known as the biden rule, and that’s a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No intellectually dishonesty here …

The new conservatives excuse we are following precedent

However overturning precedent By the SC is fine if we agree with it…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no he did not. he followed something called the biden tule. when biden was a senator, he specifically said that if. president bush tried nominating a supreme court justice near the end of his term, the senate should block him. they named it the biden rule. mcconnell just implemented it.

i think garland should have had a hearing, and then rejected. But mcconnell followed what had already been known as the biden rule, and that’s a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so what exactly was the impact of the Biden rule? Nothing and that's a fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

states have always been able to do what they want with their elections. liberals
want to federalize that as well, in places wheeee they don’t do well.

Paul, what’s racist about voter id laws? do the laws say blacks have to pay more for their ids? do they have to travel
further to get them? wait in longer lines?

the surest way to guarantee honest results are in person voting when possible, and voter ids. you can’t deny that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I know that states have always had control over the elections. So no need to tell me that. So why are the Republicans changing the rules now where they can overrule the will of the voters? Just more sleaziness out of the Republican Party. Seems to me the best way to ensure an honest election is to take it out of the hands of the Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Kind of like how Mitch McConnell changed the rules to stack the court with conservatives. So classy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What rules, exactly, did he “Change”?

The process was followed as written.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, I know that states have always had control over the elections. So no need to tell me that. So why are the Republicans changing the rules now where they can overrule the will of the voters? Just more sleaziness out of the Republican Party. Seems to me the best way to ensure an honest election is to take it out of the hands of the Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. let’s have massive mail in balloting where the only integrity is checking signatures, because everyone is qualified to compare signatures to look for differences. i’m sure that checking process is very very thorough.

i agree with you the gop can be sleazy. but both sides are willing to kick the ball into the fairway when it suits them.

but it’s only bad when republicans do it, like everything else.

you didn’t explain why voter ids are racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Mississippi Governor drooling to get rid of ROE to save the Unborn

Mississippi has the highest infant death rate in the nation as well as high incidence of other negative birth outcomes.

Mississippi Moves Up to 48th for Child Well-being, But Highest Poverty Rate

they Rank 50th in health care

49 economy and 48th in infrastructure

Just another example of Conservatives caring more about votes and the unborn then the living in their state

because once you are Born oh well . not their problem

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. let’s have massive mail in balloting where the only integrity is checking signatures, because everyone is qualified to compare signatures to look for differences. i’m sure that checking process is very very thorough.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go now Jims implying mail in ballots equals voter fraud

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Here we go now Jims implying mail in ballots equals voter fraud

i’m saying it’s a good
environment for voter fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s one argument it’s a very self centered, sick argument in my opinion.

would that woman be ok with abortion bans after viability then?

i know you don’t like
answering questions, but here goes…when would you consider it a human being?

the developing baby is the same one day as it is the next. so unless you say life begins at conception, it seems illogical
and arbitrary to pick some random date and say life begins here. doesn’t make sense to me. curious to know your answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Quite simple, until it comes out of the woman’s body it’s part of her and she gets to make the decision.

Next will be to ban birth control on "personhood from conception."

That's why they're going after the viability test.

If they drop the viability test, there's nothing to stop them from declaring "personhood," law.

That would outlaw hormone-based (pill/iud, etc.) birth control.

It wasn't hyperbole when people said that conservatives wanted a government small enough to fit in your bedroom. That's what throwing the right to privacy out the window gives them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quite simple, until it comes out of the woman’s body it’s part of her and she gets to make the decision.

Next will be to ban birth control on "personhood from conception."

That's why they're going after the viability test.

If they drop the viability test, there's nothing to stop them from declaring "personhood," law.

That would outlaw hormone-based (pill/iud, etc.) birth control.

It wasn't hyperbole when people said that conservatives wanted a government small enough to fit in your bedroom. That's what throwing the right to privacy out the window gives them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think your answer ( not until
it’s born) has logic to it at least. obviously i don’t agree, but it’s more logical than saying “it’s a human at 30 weeks”
or whatever.

i asked you a question, yiu answered it exactly as i asked it. sincerely appreciate it, no sarcasm.

viability means nothing to
me. there’s no way to determine viability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quite simple, until it comes out of the woman’s body it’s part of her and she gets to make the decision.

Next will be to ban birth control on "personhood from conception."

That's why they're going after the viability test.

If they drop the viability test, there's nothing to stop them from declaring "personhood," law.

That would outlaw hormone-based (pill/iud, etc.) birth control.

It wasn't hyperbole when people said that conservatives wanted a government small enough to fit in your bedroom. That's what throwing the right to privacy out the window gives them.

It's not only hyperbole, it's nonsensical.

Saying that the fetus is a part of the woman's body (or the man's, since we are now informed that men can have babies) is not "following the science." We are told that we must follow the science, murky, unsettled, and disputed as it is regarding the various issues with Covid, but re abortion, we can just make up stuff to make our opinion persuasive, "scientific."

The fetus is not part of the woman's body. Nor is the woman a part of the fetus's body. It is a separate being with it's own distinctive DNA.

Here's a short and interesting article re Justice Sotomayor's willful ignorance about the matter and re the fetal viability and humanness concerns:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...?ocid=msedgntp