Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jofa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Illegal immigrant camps have existed as far back as I can think of and that would be like the 1980s. So, I don’t get that.

With the last administration, ISIS arose, wars occurred in Libya, Syria. It’d be nice to have some clarity, I know of no war this administration has engaged in that we were not involved in prior.
 
EndTimes said:
40.png
JSRG:
Republicans have had a ton of Supreme Court appointees. How well has that worked out so far for overturning Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS would overturn Roe v. Wade
if the majority of those who Opine in accordance to their legal Whimsy
give Abortion the Thumbs Down

Abortion is Murder of babes in the Womb.

The Prince of this world - and those who follow his lead - peddle, support, promote, nudge - Death.
Click to expand...
None of this is actually addressing my point at all.
 
EndTimes said:
Republicans have had a ton of Supreme Court appointees. How well has that worked out so far for overturning Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...
Democrats went on about a 40 year binge of controlling Congress, the Senate. The Senate confirms Supreme Court appointments. So, just saying Republicans made the appointments is not the whole story, the Senate must confirm the appointments, they didn’t for Bork and some others I think.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So, if you don’t control the Senate tightly, you may have to compromise.
 
Victoria33 said:

Amy Klobuchar​

Amy Jean Klobuchar (born May 25, 1960) is an American politician and lawyer. She is the senior United States Senator from Minnesota since 2007. She is a member of the Democratic Party. She is the first elected female senator from Minnesota and the second female senator in the state after Muriel Humphrey Brown. She was a lawyer in Minneapolis until being elected county attorney for Hennepin County in 1998, making her responsible for all criminal prosecution in Minnesota’s most populous county. K…

There, I went ahead and pulled it up… you can read, she has a lot of Swiss in her, I think that name may well be Swiss… it doesn’t sound very Slavic. But yes, she is half Slovenian and the article says that.
Click to expand...
“Klobuchar” sounds German (or Swiss German), but I have to think that, in that part of the world, there is a lot of spill-over. Melania Trump’s maiden name is “Knavs”, which sounds to me like a Slavic way of rendering “Knauss”. Many Polish names are Polonized versions of German names (Pelc, Szwajcer, etc.).
 
jan10000 said:
The point is that here is a policy clearly DIRECTLY opposite Catholic teaching. It is blatantly anti-Christian. The Pope has even said so. Why not just say Trump is wrong? It’s almost as if you want to but can’t bring yourself to say so.
Click to expand...
I’m not throwing straw men, the US does more to help refugees than any country.

Those taking your view do NOT have a corner on compassion. The point of my mentioning this other is that perhaps, it is not the most compassion.

The Holy Father has addressed walls, has discussed some of these things. Has he said Trump is bad for refugees? I have missed that then.

I do believe the Holy Father should explain himself further.

And some Cardinals have said very different than the Pope. So, the Cardinals are wrong and the Pope is correct? I don’t see that.

And here is one example:


So, it’s not a one way street.
 
Last edited:
Vice President Biden (I know he’s ex-vice president but the debate last week did call him that) was heckled at the debate for deporting, according to the protesters, 3,000,000 people. I doubt if Trump has deported anything like that.
 
jan10000 said:
I would like you to come out and say directly that allowing a rich immigrant to enter the country while keeping a poor person out is compatible with the words and vision of Jesus Christ.

I don’t economic, political, social, political arguments. Anyone who brings those arguments up is simply saying those reasons are more important than what Jesus says.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ba72e6-558a-11e5-9f54-1ea23f6e02f3_story.html

Catholic cardinal calls mass migration ‘a new form of slavery,’ says Bible shouldn’t be used to promote it



Sorry, Cardinals and Bishops have disagreed on the immigration issue, there is no single correct answer.
 
jan10000 said:
I would like you to come out and say directly that allowing a rich immigrant to enter the country while keeping a poor person out is compatible with the words and vision of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I will say directly, no American should die from someone who is in this country illegally nor should immigrants die as well, as has happened, in the USA or in Mexico.
 
jan10000 said:
What do you think?
What would Jesus say?

There are plenty of horrible priests and bishops of there you know. I can reference some that say the Pope is wrong about pedophilia too.
Click to expand...
I totally respect your position.

As for Jesus, yes, not everyone gets into heaven. I don’t care to be confrontational. Even heaven has standards. We may be talking about the rich in an idealistic way but what is going on, on the border, drugs come in that kill, immigrants go through the worse.

We help refugees. People have rights here too. That’s about all I have to say. I hope you get answers to your questions and you were very kind. I think that’s all I have to say again.
 
Last edited:
I have searched the DNC platforms for the past 50 years as well as the position statements of all currently running for POTUS of all parties, I cannot find the infanticide word in any of them
 
jan10000 said:
The point is that here is a policy clearly DIRECTLY opposite Catholic teaching. It is blatantly anti-Christian.
Click to expand...
So if Trump’s immigration policy is directly against what the pope says it follows that the present administration is anti-Christian.
 
TMC said:
You either have no idea how this works, or you are now being completely disingenuous. If Roberts and Alito wanted to join that opinion they could have asked him to change a couple of words so that sentence would make sense. There is no rule or principle that would have prevented Roberts and Alito from joining that opinion, or otherwise taking the position that Roe should be overturned. They have not done so. I am not saying they can’t do so in the future, but it is simply a fact that they have declined to do so in the past.
Click to expand...
A justice cannot give an opinion on an issue that has not come before him as a case. No ethical jurist would ever say “Here’s how I’m going to rule should this topic ever come before me” but that is exactly what Alito and Roberts would have said had they joined Thomas’s opinion. They would be pre-announcing how they intended to rule on a case not yet tried. This would be unimaginable, and should any justice do that they should be impeached and removed.
 
Ender said:
A justice cannot give an opinion on an issue that has not come before him as a case. No ethical jurist would ever say “ Here’s how I’m going to rule should this topic ever come before me ” but that is exactly what Alito and Roberts would have said had they joined Thomas’s opinion. They would be pre-announcing how they intended to rule on a case not yet tried. This would be unimaginable, and should any justice do that they should be impeached and removed.
Click to expand...
Abortion has come before Alito and Roberts several times. They won’t comment on abortion in a land use case. But they can comment on Roe v Wade in an abortion case. Thomas does so with pretty much every abortion case. Alito and Roberts have never suggested that Roe should be overturned. Why do you think they have not had the opportunity to do so? They absolutely have.
 
TMC said:
Abortion has come before Alito and Roberts several times.
Click to expand...
No case has come before them where the central ruling of Roe was challenged. If you think otherwise, cite the case.
Alito and Roberts have never suggested that Roe should be overturned. Why do you think they have not had the opportunity to do so? They absolutely have.
Click to expand...
If a case had come before them that challenged Roe then they would have had to rule on that point. Given that, as you say, they have not done so, this can only mean that they have in fact not heard any case where the legitimacy of Roe was challenged.

If neither side in a case raises an issue then the justices cannot rule on it. Hearing a case that has something to do with abortion provides no justification for ruling on a point that was not argued., and if a point was argued then a justice must rule on it. The absence of any ruling by Roberts and Alito on the validity of Roe proves that the question was not argued before them, and given that no such case was argued they have had no legitimate opportunity to comment on it.
 
Ender said:
No case has come before them where the central ruling of Roe was challenged. If you think otherwise, cite the case.
Click to expand...
Roe and Casey are at issue in pretty much every abortion case. Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt, for example. Or June Medical Services, which is pending now. But the Court applied Casey in Hellerstedt, thereby affirming it as binding precedent. The Court could have overruled Casey in that case, but declined. Alito and Roberts could have joined Thomas’ dissent, but did not. Now the same options are on the table again with June Medical Services. As we obviously disagree on the basic issue of how the Supreme Court works, we can just wait and see what happens with June Medical Services. Will any Justice other than Thomas vote to overturn Roe and Casey? We will know soon enough.
 
TMC said:
But the Court applied Casey in Hellerstedt, thereby affirming it as binding precedent. The Court could have overruled Casey in that case, but declined. Alito and Roberts could have joined Thomas’ dissent, but did not.
Click to expand...
Actually, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion in this case which was joined by Thomas, and Roberts. More significantly, this is how that opinion began:

The constitutionality of laws regulating abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American law, but this case does not require us to delve into that contentious dispute. Instead, the dispositive issue here concerns a workaday question that can arise in any case no matter the subject, namely, whether the present case is barred by res judicata. As a court of law, we have an obligation to apply such rules in a neutral fashion in all cases, regardless of the subject of the suit. If anything, when a case involves a controversial issue, we should be especially careful to be scrupulously neutral in applying such rules.

This is just what I said above: this case was not about the validity of Roe (or Casey), but had a much more limited scope. The limited scope of the question also limited the scope of the decision. Again, there was no legitimate opportunity here to pre-judge the validity of Roe/Casey.
 
Again, we clearly have a completely different understanding of how the Court works. I am confident in my understanding, and you seem committed to yours. We won’t convince each other, but we can just wait and see what happens with June Medical Services and the other cases working their way through the courts.
 
Frankly I hope that June Medical Services doesn’t deal with the core holdings in Roe and Casey. I’m not confident that Roberts has the stomach to be the deciding vote in overturning those cases. If, however, there was one more justice who would oppose Roe I do think that Roberts would be willing to vote with the majority on a 6-3 decision, and, while any vote to undo Roe would be wildly contentious, it would certainly be better if it’s not 5-4.
 
jofa said:
The KKK has always been Democrat. The White Supremacists have disparaged Trump now, since they realized he hates them.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sure, hon. He hates white supremacists so much that he has Steven Miller in the White House and attended his wedding. They hate him so much that he gets regular praise from David Duke and the neo-nazi leader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top