Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress

[niceatheist]

Ridgerunner:

It amazes that supporters of abortion candidates refuse to see that.

Every one see the tautology.
And most see the nonsense, even those who promote wedge issue politcs.

I can’t believe abortion even remains a wedge issue. Even if Trump manages to weight more towards conservatives in the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. Trump is already discovering as past presidents have that getting your pick into the Supreme Court doesn’t come with any guarantee that once they’re there, that they will act as an Administration proxy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s interesting how many Americans voted for an overt racist in the last presidential election…

Nonsense. He may be less a racist than you are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Even if Trump manages to weight more towards conservatives in the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. Trump is already discovering as past presidents have that getting your pick into the Supreme Court doesn’t come with any guarantee that once they’re there, that they will act as an Administration proxy.

An excuse to keep supporting abortion. Try a new one. That one has been used by Dems for years, and it’s no more true now than it was years ago.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Even if Trump manages to weight more towards conservatives in the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. Trump is already discovering as past presidents have that getting your pick into the Supreme Court doesn’t come with any guarantee that once they’re there, that they will act as an Administration proxy.

An excuse to keep supporting abortion. Try a new one. That one has been used by Dems for years, and it’s no more true now than it was years ago.

I need no excuse. But mindlessly voting for any candidate who uses a wedge issue, even when even minimal observation tells you they’re blowing smoke suggests that you’re being willfully manipulated.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Nonsense. He may be less a racist than you are.

Since when is racism relative. He may very well be less racist than you are, but that tells us nothing about whether your or his level of racism is acceptable.

 

[dvdjs]

But mindlessly voting for any candidate who uses a wedge issue, even when even minimal observation tells you they’re blowing smoke suggests that you’re being willfully manipulated.

or part of the manipulation.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

But mindlessly voting for any candidate who uses a wedge issue, even when even minimal observation tells you they’re blowing smoke suggests that you’re being willfully manipulated.

or part of the manipulation.

There is that as well. There seem a few posters here who basically want to call the beliefs of Catholic voters who vote for Democrats into question, as if to say that a good Catholic can only vote Republican because Republicans pay lip service to some Catholic hard lines, even when the Church itself has made it clear that that is not a red line in many cases.

 

[dvdjs]

There seem a few posters here who basically want to call the beliefs of Catholic voters who vote for Democrats into question, as if to say that a good Catholic can only vote Republican because Republicans pay lip service to some Catholic hard lines, even when the Church itself has made it clear that that is not a red line in many cases.

Even though the actual evidence that such a vote makes a difference is woefully lacking, the hypothetical future impactfulness of the vote is, to put it very kindly, unclear, but the partisanship of the arguments very transparent. Sadly the problem of abortion, and what needs to be done about it, is lost in the interest influence votes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve never accused a judge of not being able to rule on my case because he is “Mexican” though…

he didn’t actually say that, though. What he was commenting on was Curiel’s release of Plaintiffs’ untried arguments against Trump prior to trial; something judges rarely do in high-profile cases because it can prejudice the jury pool. In addition, Curiel denied Trump’s motion to dismiss when the plaintiff wanted it dismissed, virtually forcing settlement.

Did Curiel do that because of Trump’s position on illegal immigration and Curiel’s sponsoring scholarship programs for illegals? I don’t know, and in today’s climate it wasn’t a smart thing to link. But given the risk Curiel took with a jury, it’s not hard to know why he did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Even though the actual evidence that such a vote makes a difference is woefully lacking

Of course it makes a difference. Who did Obama appoint to the Supreme Court? Two abortion supporters. Who did Bush appoint to the Court, two prolifers. Who did Trump appoint? One who is believed prolife.

Of course it makes a difference. You are familiar, I’m sure, with “Carhart vs Gonzales” a case that went to the Supreme Court over whether states could ban partial birth abortion. Every Democrat appointee on the Court voted that the states could not; which would make partial birth abortion a “constitutional right”. Every Republican appointee voted to allow states to ban partial birth abortion. Since partial birth abortion was too odious for Justice Kennedy (normally a Roe supporter), the majority upheld the right of states to ban that particular kind of killing.

Who one votes for for president is a very big deal. It’s probably the one single most important prolife thing a person can do today. So naturally, Democrats want to downplay it as if it means nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is that as well. There seem a few posters here who basically want to call the beliefs of Catholic voters who vote for Democrats into question

For some it would be beliefs, all right, as many Catholics support abortion.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewforum.org

For those who do, it is then only a matter of deciding which party’s other policies one likes better. And we see a great deal of that, though oftentimes Catholics who really approve of abortion don’t want to say it on a site like CAF.

For others, it’s a matter of practice that runs contrary to belief. That was my personal dilemma as a Democrat. When the Dem support of abortion became ironclad, I had to decide whether the Dem support of abortion outweighed my acceptance of Catholicism. I decided that it did not.

the Church itself has made it clear that that is not a red line in many cases.

Not in “many cases”. Possibly if one’s choice was to vote for a genocidal regime or an abortion-minded regime, one could see the first as a “proportionate reason” to vote for the abortionist candidate. But in the U.S. there’s no “proportionate reason” to support abortion politically, because no present political issue outweighs millions of unjust deaths of innocent human beings.

 

[dvdjs]

You are familiar, I’m sure, with “Carhart vs Gonzales”

I am. What did it accomplish? The court found given the “uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the [D&X] procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health”, there is no undo burden on the extant due process rights to an abortion. For wedge issue partisans this would be just the kind of window dressing progress that sought.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He absolutely did not say that.

So, let’s not act as if he did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am. What did it accomplish? The court found given the “uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the [D&X] procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health”, there is no undo burden on the extant due process rights to an abortion. For wedge issue partisans this would be just the kind of window dressing progress that sought.

how very Democrat to pretend the case means nothing when it was the single thing that prevented partial birth abortion from being enshrined by Democrats as a “constitutional right”.

If I was still a Democrat, I suppose I would be tempted to pretend that the Dem party stands for something other than abortion too. In reality, it stands for nothing else today.

 

[dvdjs]

How very Democrat to pretend the case means nothing

How very partisan of you to put it that way.
The ruling was about a procedure, not about late term abortions.
The ruling did not abrogate rights, but ruled that the prohibition of the D&X procedure dis not poe an undue burden to the exercise of the rights.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That was a direct quote. Are you calling me a liar?

Are you snorting fire as you say this?

I’m not calling you a liar. I am guessing you just don’t understand that your ideology has blinded you to plain English.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The ruling was about a procedure

Yes. We know defenders of abortion prefer that term.

 

[Inisfallen]

Plain English?

Are you actually able to parse Trump’s own words in such a way as to make them not link Judge Curiel’s rulings with his ethnicity? And not mean that the judge was treating Trump badly precisely because Curiel is of Mexican ancestry?

Amazing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you actually able to parse Trump’s own words in such a way as to make them not link Judge Curiel’s rulings with his ethnicity? And not mean that the judge was treating Trump badly precisely because Curiel is of Mexican ancestry?

Amazing.

Not really amazing. If you read the whole thing, it’s plain that the expression is inept, but it’s not racist. Trump got some rulings he felt were unfair, and were at least unusual if not truly unfair. Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyer’s Association, part of whose activities is providing law scholarships for illegals while Trump was campaigning for a wall to keep illegals out. The name “La Raza”, of course, means “the race”.

Now, what Trump was actually doing was suggesting racism (ethnicism really, because Mexicans are not a “race” ) on Curiel’s part, or at least a political motivation in his rulings.

I do realize liberals absolutely believe Trump is a racist, so there’s probably not much reason to take any of this a lot further.

 

[dvdjs]

what Trump was actually doing was suggesting racism (ethnicism really, because Mexicans are not a “race” ) on Curiel’s part, or at least a political motivation in his rulings.

but it’s not racist

Of course it is.