P
PaulinVA
Guest
Uhm, politicians belong in the Executive and Legislative branches. Jurists belong in the Judicial branch.
The Judiciary is impartial.
Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans
- Status
The Judiciary is impartial.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Her tests came back negative!
V
Victoria33
Guest
I usually hear about these things on twitter and then, confirm the story myself.
Senator Cotton has withdrawn himself from consideration.
Supposedly, a choice will be made by Friday.
Senator Cruz was Texas’ longest serving Solicitor General. He has taken cases to the Supreme Court and he has won at the Supreme Court.
Senator Cotton has withdrawn himself from consideration.
Supposedly, a choice will be made by Friday.
Senator Cruz was Texas’ longest serving Solicitor General. He has taken cases to the Supreme Court and he has won at the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
I’d love to see him on the Court but I believe he has also rejected it.
Last edited:
M
marybobo
Guest
It used to be. No so much now.
G
gam197
Guest
Yes and therefore all these years, the decision to abort a child should have included two people but it never did, did it and there was a reason for that.
U
upant
Guest
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Why can’t you just agree instead if trying to score points?
R
ReaderT
Guest
I like Amy Coney Barrett but I’d bet that Trump will go with the other top woman contender: Barbara Lagoa. She “checks a lot of boxes”:
- From a swing state (Florida)
- From a group Trump is trying to court (Hispanic)
- They can’t paint her as a “crazy white religious woman” like they’re trying with Amy
- Consistent pro-life voting record
- Pretty light on the eyes, too
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
because you seem to see it as one-sided, it isn’t
P
pnewton
Guest
I get the impression a lot of people see the Supreme Court as something like Congress where party lines is more important than the rule of law. I am shocked that we have people judging the Catholic faith of justices based on their interpretation of legal matters, or whether they are pro-life enough, but not too pro-life. It’s crazy. I am just glad they are not elected.
V
Victoria33
Guest
1896, Supreme Court ruled Segregation was Constitutional.
Segregation in the United States - HISTORY.
So, SCOTUS decides a bill, it’s law and now it’s good law? Yeah, right. And this is as a casual observer, maybe there are many such cases. Travesties. And 1973, let’s remember, we know a whole, whole lot more about science now than we did back then.
Democrat delegate brings up infanticide bill to Virginia legislature:
And that bill reads like Planned Parenthood wrote it, who knows what we might see if the Democrats control things.
Christine Blasey Ford, accuser of Kavanaugh apparently had connections to Planned Parenthood.
This infanticide deal is by far, not the only time this has come up, Buttigieg shamefully and disgracefully spoke of this. Buttigieg and Obama spoke on issues like this? Tell me this is not Democratic mainstream thought?
Ignoring the facts is not something we should do.
So much for the lofty goals, it’s the law, what might become the law under these people? Note, how these indefensible acts are going to be totally ignored by some. Who could ever support this?
The Democrat party and Planned Parenthood seem amazingly in unison.
Segregation in the United States - HISTORY.
So, SCOTUS decides a bill, it’s law and now it’s good law? Yeah, right. And this is as a casual observer, maybe there are many such cases. Travesties. And 1973, let’s remember, we know a whole, whole lot more about science now than we did back then.
Democrat delegate brings up infanticide bill to Virginia legislature:
And that bill reads like Planned Parenthood wrote it, who knows what we might see if the Democrats control things.
Christine Blasey Ford, accuser of Kavanaugh apparently had connections to Planned Parenthood.
This infanticide deal is by far, not the only time this has come up, Buttigieg shamefully and disgracefully spoke of this. Buttigieg and Obama spoke on issues like this? Tell me this is not Democratic mainstream thought?
Ignoring the facts is not something we should do.
So much for the lofty goals, it’s the law, what might become the law under these people? Note, how these indefensible acts are going to be totally ignored by some. Who could ever support this?
The Democrat party and Planned Parenthood seem amazingly in unison.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Right, the Cuban-American woman. Maybe. I’m not real familiar with her record either.
Pam Bondi, I don’t think she’s on the list, she seems rather reliable.
Last edited:
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I am, once we clean up the erroneous decisions that were not made impartially. You can’t start ruling impartially if your baseline is already skewed by a series of made up precedents.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Isn’t “erroneous decisions” just decisions you don’t agree with?
So, the follow on is do you believe in stare decisis or do you believe the precedent doesn’t need to be followed?
You will probably mention Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. I agree they were wrong, in that people can not be enslaved and legal segregation is wrong, because of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. I agree that abortion is murder.
It is interesting to look at. If I lived at the time and someone nominated to the Court said they thought Plessy was wrongly decided because separate but equal was inherently equal, how would I react. I am reading people’s comments with interest.
R
Rockoh22
Guest
Here is where many of us fall in to the trap.
This is a subjective truth. Subjective truth does not equal to truth. There is objective truth as well. But there in only one truth.
Killing a person is wrong. But for many people, killing a person is a right. Yes, I have heard people say this. They have the right to kill others.(not talking about abortion) That is insane.
Well, in abortion arguments do that as well. They completely remove the killing part. Call it safe and legal. That is just nuts.
SO “erroneous decision” can be Truth. However we must discern what is the truth.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
But, the truth was are discerning is legal truth, not moral truth. Abortion is murder. We know that. The ultimate question is whether our Constitution views a pre-born baby as a person.
It’s funny that, in some states, a mother on her way to an abortion can be hit by a drunk driver and the driver is charged with two murders/manslaughters if the mother dies, but if she makes it accident free to the clinic and has the abortion, she is not charged.
Gay marriage is morally wrong, but the Constitution’s 14th Amendment seems to allow it.
R
Rockoh22
Guest
There lies the problem as many see it. The constitution is clear about life. But politically wise, people argue that it doe not mention abortion, therefore Abortion can be legal.
That is the lie. Just like the lie satan gave Eve. Remember, God said: Do not eat of this three. But satan asked: Did He say not to eat from any of the threes?
Same thing happens here. The constitution does not mention abortion, therefore, it can be legal by court interpretation.
What you say is true in the sense that, people who want abortion legal, make that argument. However is it the truth? Do we have the freedom to kill babies in the womb, before they are born?
Note: When I said people have mention they have the right to kill others. I really have heard that, and they where not talking about abortion. This have been men.
Last edited:
R
Rockoh22
Guest
On this one, is because we have allowed the courts to make the laws, instead of simply making sure that the other two branches stay within the constitution. There is no turning back now, unless there is a mayor shift.
Those laws should have been made by the senate and signed by the president. Is that not how we are supposed to be governed?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
This is exactly what happened in Obergefell v Hodges. The states enacted bans on gay marriage and the Courts ruled that was unconstitutional, against the 14th amendment.
- Status