Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy

[vz71]

I’m not naive. But, you’re basically saying that you want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to overturn Roe, because of their personal viewpoint . I think that is terrible for the Court.

No, what I am saying is that I want a nominee that values life.
You are the one trying to make claim as to some meaning for the Court.

Roe v wade is bad law. Holding it in place as some kind of precedent is likewise bad law…and one can readily see that the only reason to do so is precisely because the justices do not value life.

Anytime some group of people is valued above another, bad law results.

 

[PaulinVA]

what does privacy have to do with murder?

The right to privacy is how Roe was decided, so it means everything.

Roe v wade is bad law. Holding it in place as some kind of precedent is likewise bad law…and one can readily see that the only reason to do so is precisely because the justices do not value life.

Why is it bad law? We disagree with it because of the outcome, but every outcome we disagree with does not flow from bad law.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulinVA . . . .

Why is it bad law ?

You really can’t see why “law” allowing for premeditated murder of innocent children
is “bad” can you?

 

[vz71]

Why is it bad law ?

Because it establishes that one life is worth less than another.
They establish a right to privacy over a decision murder.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not naive. But, you’re basically saying that you want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to overturn Roe, because of their personal viewpoint . I think that is terrible for the Court.

Not really a “personal viewpoint”. That’s just another Dem talking point. Sotomayor and Kagan were both chosen because of their “personal viewpoints”. NARAL vetted both of them to ensure that they support abortion. They did. Does the “personal viewpoint” test only apply to Repub appointees? Guess so.

But it isn’t "“personal” either. Nothing in the law is NOT based on a moral foundation that the lawmakers (or in some cases the founders) have. Dems never claim the “personal viewpoint” opposition when it’s their own. The congress (and the courts) used to admit that they were making decisions based on Christian principles. They don’t admit it anymore, but sometimes they still do it. That’s why Democrats always want to rake Catholic appointees over the coals. They want to be sure any Catholic appointee has no principles.

First, though, you need a legal theory of why the right to privacy doesn’t apply.

How about “What about the baby’s privacy. He’s torn to pieces in the process and that’s not an invasion of privacy?” Even Ginsberg admitted that Roe’s reasoning was faulty.

 

[vz71]

You really can’t see why “law” allowing for premeditated murder of innocent children
is “bad” can you?

Ginsburg was very proficient in twisted logic to defend such monstrous actions.
Let’s hope the next justice is more dedicated to the law instead of ideology.

 

[PaulinVA]

You really can’t see why “law” allowing for premeditated murder of innocent children
is “bad” can you?

I disagree with the law. Yeah, it’s bad.

Okay, I’ll write more after this dinner table argument ends. Gotta go.

 

[upant]

The right to privacy is how Roe was decided, so it means everything.

not if the decision isn’t based on the constitution.

Why is it bad law ? We disagree with it because of the outcome, but every outcome we disagree with does not flow from bad law.

come on, legalized murder is good law?

 

[PaulinVA]

Guys, I am against abortion. It’s murder.

My questions are more legal or philosophical.

 

[jtauke]

So whose morals are the right ones for law?

Catholic?
Protestant?
Muslim?
Jew?
Wiccan?
Etc
Etc

This is why you don’t use religion as a basis for law in a republic. This isn’t a theocracy.

 

[Cathoholic]

jtauke . . .

So whose morals are the right ones for law?

. . . This isn’t a theocracy.

Natural law. (The country doesn’t need to be a theocracy.)

 

[Cathoholic]

(name removed by moderator). You’re right.
Catholic would be wonderful!

One thing’s for sure. We DON’T need the religion of secular humanism.

Nor the morals of MOB RULE.

 

[jtauke]

So other religions should just suck it up and accept that they’re wrong about morality?

Hmmm

Good luck with that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is why you don’t use religion as a basis for law in a republic.

Which, of course, we have done since the very founding of the nation. They used to admit it openly. Now they don’t admit it, but still do it frequently.

So other religions should just suck it up and accept that they’re wrong about morality?

Rarely do they or would they. There are laws based on Christianity that Muslims do not agree with, but we don’t get rid of them just because Muslims don’t like them.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Back in 2016, McConnell said voters should decide the destiny of the court in choosing a new President. But McConnell turned his back on his own made-up rule with a Republican in the White House.

 

[Victoria33]

I’m going to say it again, the Kavanaugh treatment, Kamala Harris going after David Daleiden for exposing the baby parts selling scandal in Planned Parenthood and other things Harris has said, a Senator, Tina Smith, being a former Planned Parenthood director.

The Democrat party seems beholden to Planned Parenthood. In many ways. Over and over again it shows.

One might say the Republicans are beholden to the NRA, things like that.

It happens, lobbying organizations donate a lot to Senators and Representatives, Beto O’Rourke actually has received a lot from Oil and Gas.

Still, to be tied to Planned Parenthood really says a lot here.

I think PP is really the whole argument, not what is perceived as interpreting Constitutional Law.
.
And law changes, we all know that. Here, we could say we have a situation where one party may well block, as we have seen it happen or attempted before, judicial nominees, thus thwarting the will of the people. I see it that way.

 

[Petra202]

what I am saying is that I want a nominee that values life.

Yes and I want to add a nominee that values the words and sentiment stated in our (US) own constitution that identifies unalienable rights give to us by our creator… the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS!

 

[upant]

So whose morals are the right ones for law?

there is only one God and all morals flow from Him.

for those who don’t believe in God, their morals are man-made and subject to change based on the majority’s opinion at the time so not worthy of consideration for the law.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

It’s a lovely concept, this celebration of our unity of purpose and vision. But do we really have the shared values recited in the Declaration of Independence? Did we ever?It’s a lovely concept, this celebration of our unity of purpose and vision. But do we really have the shared values recited in the Declaration of Independence? Did we ever?

Begin with the Declaration’s inspirational language, which belies frictions that lie below its surface.

America’s founders, of course, did not actually agree that all men (to say nothing of women) were created equal. The boundaries of “liberty” were contested, and “happiness” evoked a civic-mindedness that not everyone shared.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When it came to religious belief, the vast majority of 18th-century Americans acknowledged inalienable rights “endowed by their Creator” and most of them understood their Creator through a Protestant lens. But the divisions within Protestantism were far starker than they are today. In fact, early in our country’s history, Protestant sects were quick to use the law to gain political advantage and shut down their religious opponents. Later, a Protestant majority that had placated many of its internal divisions used its political power to harangue and oppress Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists and others.

Nor are the vicious insults and careless rhetoric from today’s feuds all that new.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

continued:

Long before Twitter rants and Trumpisms, Puritan preacher John Cotton and Baptist firebrand Roger Williams wrote treatises against each other laced with name-calling and personal ridicule. The founders did not mince words either. In the presidential election of 1800, supporters of Thomas Jefferson wrote that John Adams had a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Those supporting Adams responded that Jefferson was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” In fact, impolite partisan jabs seem part-and-parcel to every election cycle. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams accused each other of sexual improprieties during their campaigns — and they were not the last presidential candidates to do so. And it wasn’t that long ago that pundits declared the 2012 campaign to be the “nastiest,” “meanest” and “dirtiest” ever.

Lest we think that only words divided us in past times, we might remember that Puritans executed Quakers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century, race riots and labor unrest led to hundreds of deaths in the 19th and 20th centuries, and 620,000 Americans died at the hands of other Americans during the Civil War. Nor did our common American heritage prevent our predecessors from slaughtering Native Americans, enslaving African Americans, and interning Japanese Americans.