D
dvdjs
Guest
That is not all clear. It really depends on the legal basis of any ruling on Roe.
- Status
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Not surprised by your response be cause you apparently have gorged on liberal spin for so long you fail to even for one second consider any news as authentic if it doesn’t align with what you injest daily .
D
dvdjs
Guest
My thinking on the matter is informed by listening to conservative talk radio, directly, ad observing the effects that it has on uncritical listeners.
I will duly consider any source whatever the content. Some, however require less than a second of consideration.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
My thought exactly re the lame stream media et all,glad we can agree on something.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I don’t have much experience with the “lame stream media”, apart form conservative talk radio.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Riiiiiiigggggght,I’m sure!
T
Theo520
Guest
ROFL
You sure about that?
Are you really saying their trial and sentencing didn’t happen?
T
Theo520
Guest
It is a pity you can’t refute the content though, which would be the ethical approach.
I still read articles from liberal sources, I’m just more likely to double check their ‘facts’. I don’t dismiss them outright.
D
dvdjs
Guest
- We have been talking oft he content in satirical posts. The content was fiction; 'nuff said about that.
- Begging the question again, I see.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Fiction based on trutth.One only needs to pay a bit of attention to the ever apoplectic Dems,left to see that .
D
dvdjs
Guest
Fiction based on other fiction.
Can you summarize the true position of Senator Warren on these candidates?
L
Luke6_37
Guest
There were 5 judges on the Supreme Court who refused to protect the prisoner’s right to due process by granting a stay of execution. An execution that was rushed through for the arbitrary reason that drugs were about to expire.Luke6_37:
Gosh … and I thought there was a judge and/or jury involved.
[Seriously … are you saying there was no judge?]
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy & Gorsuch cast the Pro-Death vote. Four Catholics and a Catholic turned Episcopalian.
I guess Catholic Social Teaching doesn’t mean much to them.
T
Trader
Guest
I will settle for anyone who will decide cases based on what the Constitution says rather than on what he or she wants it to be. It is possible to change the Constitution if there is an overwhelming reason to change it. It is difficult, but that is exactly what its authors intended.
Several of the worst decisions could be changed on that basis, including Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. As someone posted yesterday, the Supreme Court has overturned many of its previous decisions before. That is very much preferable to overturing Dred Scott by a civil war.
Several of the worst decisions could be changed on that basis, including Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. As someone posted yesterday, the Supreme Court has overturned many of its previous decisions before. That is very much preferable to overturing Dred Scott by a civil war.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I would like them to do that for gun control so everyone can own a one shot front loading musket and nothing more.
M
marybobo
Guest
Thank you for a well reasoned reply.
T
Trader
Guest
Then I guess we disagree, because the actual Constitution mentions only “arms”. Certainly that would have included swords and some of the innovations already known, liked the rifle. The second amendment was based on the natural law right to self-defense which cannot be taken away by a particular political party. Is your view of self-defense that no one should be able to protect self, family, and community from those who possess modern weapons?
I don’t disagree. If I have to make a distinction, however, I see a distinction between the innocent soon to be born, and those convicted of crimes such as murder.JonNC:
That’s fine, but I think making distinctions between those who deserve life and those who do not is playing God.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Well, previously you wrote:Luke6_37:
Then I guess we disagree, because the actual Constitution mentions only “arms”. Certainly that would have included swords and some of the innovations already known, liked the rifle. The second amendment was based on the natural law right to self-defense which cannot be taken away by a particular political party. Is your view of self-defense that no one should be able to protect self, family, and community from those who possess modern weapons?
Which makes me think you fall into the orginalism/strict constructionism camp of interpretation when it comes to the Constitution. If not, then my mistake.
And CNN isn’t protected by the 1st. After all there was no tv in that time.
This is an absurd argument rejected in the Heller decision
L
Luke6_37
Guest
It’s meant to be absurd. The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. During that time, legal reasoning has evolved. Who would have thought back in the 18th century that we’d have instant communication like we do today? Who would have thought that we would be able to travel from one end of the country to another in just a few hours (even is you count just the 13 colonies as the country, it still would have taken you longer than it does to go from ME to CA today).Luke6_37:
And CNN isn’t protected by the 1st. After all there was no tv in that time.
This is an absurd argument rejected in the Heller decision
I think Scalia had it right when it came to gun control. “Dangerous and unusual” weapons can be banned. However, that’s not my main gripe with conservatives. What really annoys me is any talk about wanting conservative justices that will decide cases based on what the Constitution says, rather than on what a justice wants it to say, is the height of hypocrisy. I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say corporations are people? Nowhere.
‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie
How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal precedent
www.theatlantic.com
- Status