Donald Trump
Comments
-
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?0 -
I think blaming it all on religion is an easy way to dismiss it and ignore those who are not religious yet pro-life.First.Aspect said:
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?
What do you mean by 'better'? It would be constitutional for a start.
0 -
I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.0 -
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.0 -
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.0 -
Right, so federal law in the US is now unconstitutional. That's a new one.nickice said:
I think blaming it all on religion is an easy way to dismiss it and ignore those who are not religious yet pro-life.First.Aspect said:
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?
What do you mean by 'better'? It would be constitutional for a start.
On your first point - not many though. In any case, pro lifers are like anyone else looking for a simple answer to a complicated question, aren't they?
0 -
"I'm going to interpret this document literally as if it were still the 18th century" being her main justification isn't great in my opinion, but Republicans seem to like it0
-
No impinging on state's rights to allow or prohibit abortion by including abortion in a right to privacy was unconstitutional. And, yes, federal law can be unconstitutional.First.Aspect said:
Right, so federal law in the US is now unconstitutional. That's a new one.nickice said:
I think blaming it all on religion is an easy way to dismiss it and ignore those who are not religious yet pro-life.First.Aspect said:
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?
What do you mean by 'better'? It would be constitutional for a start.
On your first point - not many though. In any case, pro lifers are like anyone else looking for a simple answer to a complicated question, aren't they?
0 -
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.
0 -
7 judges disagreed with you.nickice said:
No impinging on state's rights to allow or prohibit abortion by including abortion in a right to privacy was unconstitutional. And, yes, federal law can be unconstitutional.First.Aspect said:
Right, so federal law in the US is now unconstitutional. That's a new one.nickice said:
I think blaming it all on religion is an easy way to dismiss it and ignore those who are not religious yet pro-life.First.Aspect said:
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?
What do you mean by 'better'? It would be constitutional for a start.
On your first point - not many though. In any case, pro lifers are like anyone else looking for a simple answer to a complicated question, aren't they?0 -
And two didn't (plus several who've sat on the Supreme Court since). In any event, the supreme court has overruled past decisions before.kingstongraham said:
7 judges disagreed with you.nickice said:
No impinging on state's rights to allow or prohibit abortion by including abortion in a right to privacy was unconstitutional. And, yes, federal law can be unconstitutional.First.Aspect said:
Right, so federal law in the US is now unconstitutional. That's a new one.nickice said:
I think blaming it all on religion is an easy way to dismiss it and ignore those who are not religious yet pro-life.First.Aspect said:
It tends to break down on religious grounds though doesn't it, rather like in N. Ireland.nickice said:
Yes I am but I can separate law from my personal opinions. Overruling Roe v Wade would not mean abortion was illegal as it would revert to being a state issue.rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
If you think it's about 'telling women what they can do with their bodies'
1) You must support abortion right up until birth
2) There are an awful lot of women who want to tell other women what they 'can do with their own bodies'
Can you please explain why it would be better for it to be an issue of state law, seeing as several of the gun toting don't take kindly to your kind here redneck states have tried to make it illegal already, and have rulings in place should BvW ever be overturned in the supreme court?
What do you mean by 'better'? It would be constitutional for a start.
On your first point - not many though. In any case, pro lifers are like anyone else looking for a simple answer to a complicated question, aren't they?0 -
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.0 -
The Supr
The added rights in that didn't exist.elbowloh said:
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.0 -
Laws in the USA are supposed to be made by the legislature. That's why the legislature elected and the judiciary isn't.0
-
1. In many levels in the US the judiciary is elected.nickice said:Laws in the USA are supposed to be made by the legislature. That's why the legislature elected and the judiciary isn't.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
2. In the case of the SC, if they're selected by the party in power, then they may as well be by election.0 -
So you think the Constitution was meant to be a "be all and end all" of every law of the US? That's a lot to ask for a document of 4 pages and 4,543 words.nickice said:The Supr
The added rights in that didn't exist.elbowloh said:
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.
Yes, i googled it.0 -
I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.1
-
1) not supreme court justices unless you count approval by the senate as electedelbowloh said:
1. In many levels in the US the judiciary is elected.nickice said:Laws in the USA are supposed to be made by the legislature. That's why the legislature elected and the judiciary isn't.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
2. In the case of the SC, if they're selected by the party in power, then they may as well be by election.
2) Wrong. They have judicial tenure and often rule against the wishes of the president/party who nominated them.0 -
I like the idea that a constitution with 33 amendments can't be amended. 😉elbowloh said:
So you think the Constitution was meant to be a "be all and end all" of every law of the US? That's a lot to ask for a document of 4 pages and 4,543 words.nickice said:The Supr
The added rights in that didn't exist.elbowloh said:
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.
Yes, i googled it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
The privacy argument is that the government has no right to interfere in a person's private actions. Moderated by balancing against other government interests.0
-
It certainly can't be amended by the Supreme Court.pblakeney said:
I like the idea that a constitution with 33 amendments can't be amended. 😉elbowloh said:
So you think the Constitution was meant to be a "be all and end all" of every law of the US? That's a lot to ask for a document of 4 pages and 4,543 words.nickice said:The Supr
The added rights in that didn't exist.elbowloh said:
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.
Yes, i googled it.0 -
It is the be all and end all if we want to know if a law is unconstitutional which is what happened in Roe v Wade.elbowloh said:
So you think the Constitution was meant to be a "be all and end all" of every law of the US? That's a lot to ask for a document of 4 pages and 4,543 words.nickice said:The Supr
The added rights in that didn't exist.elbowloh said:
The Constitution?nickice said:
You can't interpret something that isn't there.elbowloh said:
Which is open to interpretation.nickice said:
Well of course which is why they want a judge who'll actually follow the constitution.elbowloh said:I think its pretty clear that the GOP so desperately want ACB on the court is because they think it "loads the deck" more in their favour on a number of issues ("Obamacare" for one), not just abortion. It's the same for appointments made by Democrats. you have to acknowledge that?
The fact that appointments are made politically in this way in the first place is pretty terrible. It clearly goes against the idea of a separation of power.
Yes, i googled it.
0 -
The question, though, is not whether someone should have the right to an abortion but whether that right existed in the constitution.kingstongraham said:The privacy argument is that the government has no right to interfere in a person's private actions. Moderated by balancing against other government interests.
0 -
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.0 -
Why do I hear Ave Satani? 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's the reverse. Does the right exist for the state to prevent them?nickice said:
The question, though, is not whether someone should have the right to an abortion but whether that right existed in the constitution.kingstongraham said:The privacy argument is that the government has no right to interfere in a person's private actions. Moderated by balancing against other government interests.
0 -
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
It's not the reverse. It's a state issue not a federal issue. That's all the case was about.kingstongraham said:
It's the reverse. Does the right exist for the state to prevent them?nickice said:
The question, though, is not whether someone should have the right to an abortion but whether that right existed in the constitution.kingstongraham said:The privacy argument is that the government has no right to interfere in a person's private actions. Moderated by balancing against other government interests.
0 -
That's why I used the word "state"nickice said:
It's not the reverse. It's a state issue not a federal issue. That's all the case was about.kingstongraham said:
It's the reverse. Does the right exist for the state to prevent them?nickice said:
The question, though, is not whether someone should have the right to an abortion but whether that right existed in the constitution.kingstongraham said:The privacy argument is that the government has no right to interfere in a person's private actions. Moderated by balancing against other government interests.
0
