Democratic Party Senators voted 47 - 0 against confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett: Had 3 more Democrats won seats in 2018, Barrett would not be a Supre

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My quarrel is with those who insist on a simple, unalterable answer.
Oh, it is complex, I agree. It is complex when we go to the individual. When you really look at it, the problem can be summarized to one issue. Men failing.

But the problem is not this. When we talk about abortion, defenders of abortion want to make the human, not a person. Thus if it is not a person, it can be killed. That is where the arguments come from.

Also, I do not feel like writing an essay explaining every point, because long winded answers loose people.
 
99.7% or more of abortions do not involve rape or incest. Are you suggesting an elimination of all of this to allow for those of rape and incest?
Killing a child born of rape or incest is still killing, isn’t it?
 
40.png
JonNC:
99.7% or more of abortions do not involve rape or incest. Are you suggesting an elimination of all of this to allow for those of rape and incest?
Killing a child born of rape or incest is still killing, isn’t it?
Yes. And it isn’t the fault of the already born or the soon to be born child that a sexual assault or rape was involved in their conception.
While I’m not implying that @ProVobis is presenting this, my point is that using rape and incest as a justification for abortion broadly is an indefensible position.
 
For the record, Anita Hill was the one who had attacked Clarence Thomas and brought in many witnesses. Biden decided to cut off testimony for which the Anita Hill people never forgave him. I still have tapes of those hearings.
 
Curious no one brings up what a total own goal this was for the Democrats.

For those not familiar with the term “own goal”, this comes from soccer: it occurs when the defending team hits the ball into their own net, hence scoring a goal for the other team.

Ginsburg should have retired in 2013 and allowed Obama to replace her while he had the majority in the Senate with him. But she had hubris, she wanted Hillary to nominate her replacement. Because Hillary wasn’t supposed to lose. But lose she did and Ginsburg was stuck. RIP

Had Obama been able to replace Ginsburg, the Democrats wouldn’t be in this fix now.

22 Presidents have been faced with a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year. All 22 nominated a candidate to fill the vacancy. Whether that candidate made it to the Supreme Court or not was almost entirely dependent on whether the Senate majority party was the same as the President’s. In election years where they were the same party, the nominees usually got through. In other election years, where the parties were different, the nominees usually did not make it.

So there exists precedent for what the Republican Senators did in 2016 and there exists precedent for what Trump and the Republican Senators did this time around. Is that political? It darn well is! Anyone who wants to wave their hands about this is going to have explain the precedent away somehow.
 
The good thing is that voters already know that the Democrats will pack the courts by adding additional Judges (leftist extremists) if they win the Presidency and the Senate. So American citizens know what’s at stake. Values-voters can save this country by taking the time to vote.
 
And Democrats will pack the courts, if they win the Presidency and the Senate:


(hat-tip @cathoholic)


"Repeatedly Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refuse to answer whether they would pack the court. What does it mean to pack the court? Packing the court means one very specific thing which means expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome.

“Packing the court is wrong. It is an abuse of power. I believe should they win in November that our Democratic colleagues will pack the court. I think that’s why Joe Biden refuses to answer it, although he did say when asked that the voters don’t deserve to know his answer, as to whether he’ll pack the court.”

For their part, neither Biden nor Harris will admit that this is their intention, nor will they reveal that the language is being intentionally changed to suit partisan interests, not justice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top