gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yup. Biden gets to freely usurp power that he doesn't have, meanwhile Trump gets to have his legitimate power usurped by leftist activists wearing black robes.
Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
moon
Satire for Sanity
Geez- juvenile creepo on a roll ^Yep, you're completely impotent too.
Haw, haw..............................haw.
How is 49% the “will of the people?”Correction: Activist judges shouldn’t OBSTRUCT the will of the people
Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people
Our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances that serves as the foundation of our great American republic. While our founders envisioned the elected executive and representative branches as driving our republic, we have seen a giant shift in power to the unelected judicial branch and bureaucrats.
President Donald Trump’s November victory was the first step in restoring balance and order once again. Trump was chosen to break the mold, to challenge the entrenched powers, and to steer the country in a direction that better reflects the wills of the American people. But there is a significant hurdle standing in his way: judges who have used their position to undermine the will of the voters and the president’s agenda.
The will of the voters is clear. We’ve demanded change and an end to the status quo that has dominated Washington, D.C., for decades. For far too long, power in America has concentrated in two areas: the courts and the bureaucracy. This trend has persisted across administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and it has left citizens wondering who really holds the power in this nation. Is it the elected representatives of the people, or is it the judges and bureaucrats who seem to make decisions far outside the scope of their original mandate?
Trump was elected precisely to challenge these entrenched elites and bring real change to Washington. He has the strength and courage to push back against the elite political class to bring much-needed change to our government. But too often, Trump’s efforts have been blocked by judges who have overstepped their bounds and allowed their personal agendas to interfere with necessary policy changes.
The role of federal judges should not be to set foreign policy or to dictate how the president can enforce immigration law. The courts should respect the boundaries of their authority and allow the executive branch to carry out its constitutionally mandated duties. Instead, we see the continued safety risk to the American people that weak immigration law has caused.
Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people - Washington Examiner
But too often, Trump’s efforts have been blocked by judges who have overstepped their bounds and allowed their personal agendas to interfere with necessary policy changes.www.washingtonexaminer.com
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Why do you find it necessary to lie about me?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
That is a lie.
Why is it you never answer a question?
What part of the Constitution is Trump not following, you brainless dumbass?
No, it was a FACT. But then, what do brainless leftist liars like care about facts, right?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Democrats don't support "unfettered" abortion up to birth, dumbass.
Stop listening to propaganda.
This is why one cannot argue with a lying leftist dumbass.
Again,
Truth Detector said:
Why is it you never answer a question?
What part of the Constitution is Trump not following, you brainless dumbass?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
And I asked if I ever said that. It's a simple question.
Yes, they do. Yes they have. Yes, it is a fact no matter how many times you pound your tiny, insignificant little fists on the table little man.
S.1645 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
(11) Not all people who become pregnant or need abortion services identify as women. Access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person regardless of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or sexual orientation), age, or disability status. This Act’s protection is inclusive of all pregnant people.(b) Purpose.—It is the purpose of this Act—
(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements .....
(a) General rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
(1) A requirement that a health care provider perform specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services, unless generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.
(2) A requirement that the same health care provider who provides abortion services also perform specified tests, services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the abortion.
(3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or provide the patient seeking abortion services medically inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion services.
(4) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based regimens or the provider’s good-faith medical judgment, other than a limitation generally applicable to the medical profession.
(5) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical services via telemedicine.
(6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures are performed.
(7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
(8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient’s health.
(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services prior to fetal viability state the patient's reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision of abortion services prior to fetal viability based on the patient’s reasons or perceived reasons for obtaining abortion services.
(5) VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.
Here's all the Democrats supporting and sponsoring this abomination:
S. 1645 — A bill to protect a woman’s ability to determine whether and when to bear a child or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide reproductive health care services, including abortion services; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown, Ms. Harris, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Tester, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Schatz, Mr. King, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Booker, Mr. Warner, Mr. Udall, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. Sinema), S3105 [23MY]
Take your own advice you brainless halfwit.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
"(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health."Yes, they do. Yes they have. Yes, it is a fact no matter how many times you pound your tiny, insignificant little fists on the table little man.
S.1645 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
(11) Not all people who become pregnant or need abortion services identify as women. Access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person regardless of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or sexual orientation), age, or disability status. This Act’s protection is inclusive of all pregnant people.
(b) Purpose.—It is the purpose of this Act—
(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements .....
(a) General rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
(1) A requirement that a health care provider perform specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services, unless generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.
(2) A requirement that the same health care provider who provides abortion services also perform specified tests, services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the abortion.
(3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or provide the patient seeking abortion services medically inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion services.
(4) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based regimens or the provider’s good-faith medical judgment, other than a limitation generally applicable to the medical profession.
(5) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical services via telemedicine.
(6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures are performed.
(7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
(8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient’s health.
(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services prior to fetal viability state the patient's reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision of abortion services prior to fetal viability based on the patient’s reasons or perceived reasons for obtaining abortion services.
(5) VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.
Here's all the Democrats supporting and sponsoring this abomination:
S. 1645 — A bill to protect a woman’s ability to determine whether and when to bear a child or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide reproductive health care services, including abortion services; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown, Ms. Harris, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Tester, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Schatz, Mr. King, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Booker, Mr. Warner, Mr. Udall, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. Sinema), S3105 [23MY]
Take your own advice you brainless halfwit.
This is why one cannot argue with a low IQ liar.
More evidence you lack any reding ability.
without any of the following limitations or requirements:
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Do you not understand about the life threatening pregnancy?More evidence you lack any reding ability.
without any of the following limitations or requirements:
You don't understand much of anything.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
A nonanswer.
Neoclitorus
Best
they all convinced themselves Lucifer was awesome and that corruption and graft is enlightened.