Newsnews

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:10 PM

At least conservatives control the Supreme Court now

Politics in this country has become such a shit show disaster, but at least there's the silver lining that SCOTUS is now...

...just a sec, got an incoming news alert here...

...oh okay then. Nevermind.

30 replies, 339 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply At least conservatives control the Supreme Court now (Original post)
msv Feb 8 OP
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Feb 8 #1
Gunslinger201 Feb 8 #4
FreeWheelBurning Feb 8 #2
Valishin Feb 8 #16
FreeWheelBurning Feb 9 #17
Valishin Feb 9 #18
FreeWheelBurning Feb 9 #19
Valishin Feb 9 #20
FreeWheelBurning Feb 9 #21
Valishin Feb 9 #22
FreeWheelBurning Feb 10 #23
Valishin Feb 10 #25
FreeWheelBurning Feb 10 #26
Valishin Feb 10 #27
FreeWheelBurning Feb 11 #28
Valishin Feb 11 #29
FreeWheelBurning Feb 11 #30
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #3
Gunslinger201 Feb 8 #5
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #6
Daves Not Here Man Feb 8 #7
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #8
Daves Not Here Man Feb 8 #9
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #10
Daves Not Here Man Feb 8 #11
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #12
Daves Not Here Man Feb 8 #13
MumblyPeg Feb 8 #14
Daves Not Here Man Feb 8 #15
joefriday6 Feb 10 #24

Response to msv (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:18 PM

1. Robert's has turned full lib. We really need to replace RBG. THAT's why she is hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyMakesMeHappy (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 02:21 PM

4. IMO shes hidden because she is decomposing

They are trying like fuck to pretend she is out and about

No pictures since before they claimed she had pneumonia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msv (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:54 PM

2. I was hoping for a different ruling

The federal government has no consitituional authority regarding abortion. I had hoped that the SC would recognize the state's authority in this regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 11:43 PM

16. The 13th amendment would argue otherwise

The problem with Roe v Wade isn't that it was the wrong decision its that it was the technically correct legal decision based on the wrong logic. They couldn't afford to use the correct logic in a SC decision because the precedent would undercut a great deal of power throughout the rest of the federal government so they had to make up an argument out of thin air that doesn't really pass constitutional muster on its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 08:07 AM

17. IMO, the 13th does not apply to abortion or state's rights

It seems we are on the same page here.

Slavery was recognized in the constitution so in order to abolish it an amendment was necessary.

Abortion is not in the constitution. We have the 10th amendment which is very clear, Powers not delegated to the federal gov't nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states. The decision in Roe v Wade should have been made with the 10th as a foundation with the policy regarding abortion residing with the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 12:38 PM

18. If you are mandating

one human provide their body to service another even for life sustaining service, that's slavery. If you believe the original consent to be tantamount to a contract agreement that's indentured servitude both outlawed by the 13th amendment. As such since it was covered by the Constitution then 10th amendment doesn't apply to that issue.

Note that you don't have to be in favor of abortion to recognize this conflict. The normal argument from the right would be that the right to life supersedes the right to not be enslaved or indentured the problem there is the Constitution does not create a hierarchy of rights all rights are treated as equal in the Constitution. The next argument would be that the baby doesn't know and/or can't choose not to create this conflict. While a noble argument it is moot in a discussion of rights. Inability to do otherwise does not grant the right to establish an entitlement to infringe upon the rights of another even for the best of reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 07:51 PM

19. Your 1st paragraph used a lot of words to say what I posted

With regards to abortion, there are two issues for me.

1st, I do think that the right to life supesedes a women's right to chose. This is a moral stance for me

2nd, The Constitution does not give the federal gov't the authority to regulate abortion. Since that is the case the authority resides with the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 08:31 PM

20. Not exactly

1st, you can take that position all you want but that is a position on how things should be not what is in the agreed upon text. What you want would require an amendment.

2nd, it isn't a question of regulation its a question of allowance. Since the 13th amendment covers the issue of enslavement then the 10th amendment catch all does not apply because the applies ONLY if the issue isn't covered elsewhere. When one human is enslaving or forcing servitude upon another even for the most honorable of reasons, the victim of that infringement may take actions necessary to defend themselves from the infringement. In addition the 14th amendment applies the same limitations on infringement as states so its a double side sword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 09:40 PM

21. I think we are talking about 2 different things

My point is that the 10th should take precendence when it comes to abortion and that the 13th concerns slavery, not abortion.

Reading your response it seems you think my position is that the 10th should take precedence over the 13th when it comes to slavery. That is not my position..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 10:29 PM

22. Maybe you're missing the point

the mother is the one having their rights infringed upon. That's either enslavement or indentured servitude depending on how you view the initial decision to conceive. The child while completely incapable of knowing what is going on more or less doing something about is still none the less creating an infringement on the mother's right to choose not provide her body as a life saving implement for the baby. Now that seems heartless but legality has no soul nor should it. Your argument no matter how you work your way to the end point of it comes down to the simple question of does the baby's desire to live establish an entitlement to the use of the mother's body to do so. Until such time as that baby is viable for birth, that is the dilemma that remains. Luckily for the species nature stepped in and gave women a natural desire to volunteer for such duty so plenty of them choose to do so. But that does not make it a requirement for them to do so legally.

So yes the 13th does apply here since the mother has the right to have another human who is using her body to survive to remove that other human from her body. This is identical the question of do we have a right to force people to give blood or an organ even if not doing so would mean the death of the one in need of assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 09:55 AM

23. Not missing the point at all

The babie's right to life supercede the mother's right to abort the baby for emotional or economic means. I reject the notion that a woman being prevented from an abortion is some form of enslavement or servitude. If I held that view I would support using the 13th as a basis for abortion rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 03:06 PM

25. if you want

the Constitution to support that position an amendment is required. Rights are not tiered currently nor do any right establish entitlements to assistance from others. What you want is noble and perhaps desirable but it is not reflective of the document as written today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 04:03 PM

26. An amendment is not required

The constitution already addresses it. Powers not granted to the federal gov't reside with the states. This was a settled issue until Roe Vs Wade undermined the Constitution. What is needed is for judges to decide cases on what is written, not what they think was intended.

We disagree with the intent of the 13th amendment. You are comfortable with expanding the meaning of the word "slavery" and the phrase "involuntary servitude" in the 13th to include a woman having to raise a child she has born.That reading of the text relies on interpreting the spirit of the law instead of what was written and original intent. There is no doubt that the writers of the 13th were dealing specifically with the institution of slavery in the US. They were not considering any additional forms of "servitude" such as a woman raising a child or even a forced military draft for example.

This is a perfect example of why using "spirit of the law" causes problems. It leaves too much weasel room for people to attempt to legitimize their position when they cannot do it otherwise. It is the primary reason I favor originalists on the SC. Enforce the laws as written. If you want to give the federal government a power that is not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, pass an amendment. Abortion should have always been left to the states to deal with as they see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 11:11 PM

27. You are absolutely 100% wrong

This is not a granted power its an explicit limitation. What you want would be a granted power. And like it or not the states cannot restrict a right protected by the constitution. I don't have to be comfortable nor uncomfortable with the definition as this issue is a textbook example of both spirit and text. The only thing it doesn't do is be identical in format to chattel slavery we didn't just out law that form of slavery we outlawed all forms of slavery. You say they weren't considering any forms of "servitude" yet they explicitly included another form of servitude. You simply want to ignore this because you don't like the outcome. Perhaps I don't like the out come either but I'm not trying to shoehorn my personal views into the law.

The reason this argument isn't used is because you are right, it would threaten other inappropriate aspects of our government like the draft, welfare, and social security. However like it or not the 13th amendment outlaws the mandate of one human being forced to provide for benefit of another human. To make an exception to this and be consistent with what the Constitution actually says as opposed to what you want to read it as requires an amendment. Until this is changed the only consistent position that can be taken is to allow abortion up until the point of a viable birth at which point the individual causing the infringement can be removed from the one not willing to provide assistance without fatal result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 07:11 AM

28. You can bleet that I am wroing all you want

I disagree with you and therefore think that you are wrong. At this point we are just using different words to say the same thing over and over again. This conversation has run its course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 08:15 AM

29. No, you disagree with

the text therefore you are wrong. You may very well have the better outcome in mind, but this isn't about what should be it is about what is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 08:20 AM

30. Give it a rest

I don't agree with expanding the wording and intent of the 13th amendment the way you do. It is as simple at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msv (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:55 PM

3. Roberts has been playing lefty activist for years... is this some sort of revelation to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 02:22 PM

5. Bushs try for a moderate and get Libs

Souter was the same problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 02:33 PM

6. Yea, his whole "bi-partisan" thing was nothing more than capitulating to the commie bastards...

roberts was just one of those instances.
I always found it comical that lefty considered Bush the devil since Bush was as left as obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 03:18 PM

7. lol.

“lefty activist”


great take. you should be a political pundit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 03:32 PM

8. judges who ignore the constitution and written law in favor of their own opinions are

indeed activists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 03:35 PM

9. guess you better deal with it the best way you know how.

posting bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:19 PM

10. sorry if reality hurts your feelings, but that's where it stands little buddy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:51 PM

11. feelings? you are the emotional poster, poster.

one needs to simply read any of your frothing at the mouth posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:54 PM

12. awwww... sounds like someone has something under their thin little skin again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:55 PM

13. link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:01 PM

14. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:44 PM

15. here if ya need me, bud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msv (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:53 AM

24. That's pretty much is what is going to happen, though maybe no news alert warning. The US is run

and managed by crooks and idiots like AOC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews