R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Except Roe vs Wade was decided 7-2 based on the Constitution.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RidgeSprinter. Roe was NOT based on “The Constitution”.
There are no provisions in the Constitution that support premeditated murder of an innocent human being explicitly or implicitly. At least the U.S. Constitution.
Not even using pretend “penumbras”.
There are no provisions in the Constitution that support premeditated murder of an innocent human being explicitly or implicitly. At least the U.S. Constitution.
Not even using pretend “penumbras”.
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Yet the ruling was based on the Constitution.RidgeSprinter. Roe was NOT based on “The Constitution”.
There are no provisions in the Constitution that support premeditated murder of an innocent human being explicitly or implicitly. At least the U.S. Constitution.
Not even using pretend “penumbras”.
A
Annie
Guest
Not really. The Senate had an R majority, and they were not going to approve him, so they skipped the time- and attention-consuming stuff and worked on other things.
This time, both the Senate and the Presidency are held by the same party, so they are moving ahead.
This time, both the Senate and the Presidency are held by the same party, so they are moving ahead.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RidgeSprinter insisting Roe was based on the Constitution . . . .
That is exactly WHY the pro-aborts who KNOW Roe was bad “law” are so concerned.
No it wasn’t. It was fabricated. And that is WHY it is such a shaky “foundation”.Yet the ruling was based on the Constitution.
That is exactly WHY the pro-aborts who KNOW Roe was bad “law” are so concerned.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
You mean Trump’s fanatics!!Because the voters here understand how Court-Packing is an abuse of power.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
When no politically advantageous answer?
Deflect to Trump.
Deflect to Trump.
A
Annie
Guest
From Wikipedia:
So, yeah, there may still be some Americans left who are still able to view as unfair or unwise an act their own party proposes. They do not have to be “Trump fanatics.”
Note that FDR’s attempt to courtpack was opposed not only by Republicans but by members of FDR’s own party the Democrats.Members of both parties viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, and many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner, opposed it.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt’s “court-packing plan,” a phrase coined by Edward Rumely.[2]
So, yeah, there may still be some Americans left who are still able to view as unfair or unwise an act their own party proposes. They do not have to be “Trump fanatics.”
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
That is your opinion and entitled to it.No it wasn’t. It was fabricated. And that is WHY it is such a shaky “foundation”.
But it does not negate the facts that the ruling was based on the Constitution. And has stood the test of time for 48 years.
T
twf
Guest
The Canadian Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75. Its beyond my comprehension why a country like the US, where everyone else, from the county courthouse janitor up, is voted in for a limited term, these incredibly powerful, incredibly prestigious, all important Supreme Court Justices are expected to serve for life. There’s only one word for it - stupid. If US Supreme Court Justices had a mandatory retirement age, this war between Republicans and Democrats, full of fear mongering on both sides, would greatly diminish. The power of one president and one senate to select lifetime appointments that can literally reshape the entire country is absolutely, completely bonkers…
But neither party would support a change, because both parties absolutely lust for this power…the ability to reshape the country for decades to come with a single appointment is just too big of a temptation to ever even consider giving up…no matter how irrational.
But neither party would support a change, because both parties absolutely lust for this power…the ability to reshape the country for decades to come with a single appointment is just too big of a temptation to ever even consider giving up…no matter how irrational.
Last edited:
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and that being appointed for life shields them from partisan politics. Obviously doesn’t work like that anymore.
I think there should be an age limit of 30-65 for voting and holding office across the board. For everyone and every position.
I think there should be an age limit of 30-65 for voting and holding office across the board. For everyone and every position.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Then the left has nothing to worry about.But it does not negate the facts that the ruling was based on the Constitution.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
I would agree.Then the left has nothing to worry about.
V
Vanny
Guest
This is correct. And honestly had Ruth Bader Ginsberg retired during the Obama administration in 2014 when she was ill he could have replaced her then with his pick.
I strongly believe that if the Democrats were in President Trump’s current position, if Hillary were now President and if the Democrats had the senate, or course they would fill the seat.
ETA: I don’t think Joe Biden wants to pack the court, but I do think the radical left segment of the Democratic party does, and I don’t think he is strong enough to prevail against them.
I strongly believe that if the Democrats were in President Trump’s current position, if Hillary were now President and if the Democrats had the senate, or course they would fill the seat.
ETA: I don’t think Joe Biden wants to pack the court, but I do think the radical left segment of the Democratic party does, and I don’t think he is strong enough to prevail against them.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RidgeSprinter . . .
It was based on a fabricated “penumbra” or secondary shadow.
And it was a WRONG secondary shadow.
Roe vrs. Wade was NOT “based on the Constitution”.But it does not negate the facts that the ruling was based on the Constitution.
It was based on a fabricated “penumbra” or secondary shadow.
And it was a WRONG secondary shadow.
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
It was based on the Constitution by a vote of 7 -2.Roe vrs. Wade was NOT “based on the Constitution”.
It was based on a fabricated “penumbra” or secondary shadow.
And it was a WRONG secondary shadow.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RidgeSprinter defending the “Constitutionality” of
the American Government defending those who murder (some) innocent people . . .
and place himself in the leadrship of THAT epoch . . .
. . . The vote FOR Roe would have been 17-2.
And it would have been just as unconstitutional as the real Roe decision was.
.
Leftist Court-Packing. A hallmark of a banana republic.
Another illicit leftist gimmick to obtain power they cannot get licitly.
the American Government defending those who murder (some) innocent people . . .
I have a feeling that if Biden could go back in time,It was based on the Constitution by a vote of 7 -2.
and place himself in the leadrship of THAT epoch . . .
. . . The vote FOR Roe would have been 17-2.
And it would have been just as unconstitutional as the real Roe decision was.
.
Leftist Court-Packing. A hallmark of a banana republic.
Another illicit leftist gimmick to obtain power they cannot get licitly.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
That is not very democratic. I guess I would not mind a reasonable upper limit for holding office, though 65 is too young, but it will never happen, and there should be no limit on adults voting.I think there should be an age limit of 30-65 for voting
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
No I am defending that which is understood to be law. The right to a woman’s “Right to Due Process” and “Right to Privacy” which was the basis of Roe vs Wade.RidgeSprinter defending the “Constitutionality” of
the American Government defending those who murder (some) innocent people . . .
Read the Decision by SCOTUS and then come back.
HOLDING:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life. Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated this right.
You can read the fundamentals here;
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RidgeSprinter . . .
It was manufactured out of a “penumbra”.
It is not “law” and has never been so.No I am defending that which is understood to be law. The right to a woman’s “Right to Due Process” and “Right to Privacy” which was the basis of Roe vs Wade.
It was manufactured out of a “penumbra”.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.