To show how far the right has come,

Grokmaster said:
Not if you support abortion you're not.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is a christian nor should laws be based on what the majority religion thinks, they are free not to avail themselves, but to decide for other? No way

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
 
Grokmaster said:
And now, that greviously wrong ruling might be reversed, which means you can set your own abortion laws in your own state; you just don't get to force every state to agree with you.
Click to expand...

Oh, just like guns, so I guess Alito and the rest will rule against the plaintiffs saying New York can establish their own rules regarding open carry
 
guno said:
Not everyone is a christian nor should laws be based on what the majority religion thinks, they are free not to avail themselves, but to decide for other? No way

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
Click to expand...

She didn't claim to be "JEWISH" ,did she?
 
Grokmaster said:
Not if you support abortion you're not.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, you can't be an Irish Roman Catholic who doesn't agree with abortion yet not understand how others can think the Government should enforce their religious beliefs?

Oh, so then you would agree that an American Islamic community can make it via law that all women wear a Hijab
 
archives said:
Oh, just like guns, so I guess Alito and the rest will rule against the plaintiffs saying New York can establish their own rules regarding open carry
Click to expand...

Unlike the right to keep,and bear arms, THERE IS NO CONSTITUIONAL "RIGHT" TO ABORTION.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. Roe v Wade "CREATED" a non-existent right.
 
archives said:
Where is "slavery" in the Constitution? If I remember, the Founders specifically avoided using the term "slavery," and the only mention of their terminology, "enslaved population" is in the three fifths compromise which was eliminated
Click to expand...

The term "slavery" is not in the Constitution, but we both know the document allowed slavery or it would never have been ratified. Congress is prohibited from banning the slave trade for 20 years and this cannot be amended.

The 3/5 compromise was not eliminated until after slavery ended. It helped end slavery because it gave the Southern states less power in Congress than if slaves were counted as full residents.

The fugitive slave clause refers to "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State.."

The point is that the Supreme Court had no power to end slavery.
 
archives said:
Wait a minute, you can't be an Irish Roman Catholic who doesn't agree with abortion yet not understand how others can think the Government should enforce their religious beliefs?

Oh, so then you would agree that an American Islamic community can make it via law that all women wear a Hijab
Click to expand...


You SUPPORT ABORTION, LIAR.
 
Grokmaster said:
Unlike the right to keep,and bear arms, THERE IS NO CONSTITUIONAL "RIGHT" TO ABORTION.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. Roe v Wade "CREATED" a non-existent right.
Click to expand...

The 9th says the people retain rights not enumerated in amendments 1-8. What is one of these rights?

Do you have a right to send your child to private school or use birth control?
 
archives said:
Wait a minute, you can't be an Irish Roman Catholic who doesn't agree with abortion yet not understand how others can think the Government should enforce their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Many people have opinions about abortion that are not necessarily based on their religious views. A law allowing or prohibiting abortion is no more the government enforcing religious beliefs than laws prohibiting murder, rape, assault, theft...

If government allows abortion are they enforcing the religious beliefs of pro-abortion people?
 
Flash said:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...22-03-31-Final-Order-Following-dckt-665_0.pdf

I did not claim it was voter suppression but was demonstrating that the courts had struck down laws accused of being suppression.
Click to expand...

Link to these "suppression-filled laws" that youare pulling out of your ass, please...




READ YOUR OWN LINK: "......a. For these reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that the
Legislature enacted the VBM request provision with the intent to discriminate
against Black voters."



Try again.
 
Grokmaster said:
Link to these "suppression-filled laws" that youare pulling out of your ass, please...

READ YOUR OWN LINK: "......a. For these reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that the
Legislature enacted the VBM request provision with the intent to discriminate
against Black voters."

Try again.
Click to expand...

"Plaintiffs are right. Thus, as explained in detail below, this Court enjoins
Defendants from enforcing most of SB 90’s challenged provisions."

That said, this Court finds that the remaining challenged provisions—the drop
box provision, the solicitation definition, and the registration return provision—specifically target Black voters.

In sum, this Court concludes that to the extent promoting voter confidence or preventing voter fraud may have motivated the Legislature in part, this Court finds that the Legislature passed SB 90 with the intent to restructure Florida’s election system in ways that favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. This Court further finds that, to advance the Legislature’s main goal of favoring Republicans over Democrats, the Legislature enacted some of SB 90’s provisions with the intent to target Black voters because of their propensity to favor Democratic candidates.

You obviously didn't reach far enough up my ass for your information.
 
archives said:
I wouldn't go that far, there are scores of SCOTUS decisions that corrected injustices or allowed the Government to govern effectively

What we have now is a Court that reflects Mitch's tinkering with the process, none of Trump's appointees would have been approved under prior rules, and never will a nominee be considered where the President is one party and the Senate another. Court's have been political in the past, both ways, but never to the extreme this Court is, and it is all be design
Click to expand...

Outside of the relatively liberal Warren and Burger courts of the mid-20th century, I would be hard pressed to name hardly any SCOTUS decisions that stuck a blow for social and economic justice.

Compared to the history of the legislative and executive branches, I still feel like SCOTUS on balance was typically the most reactionary institution in the history of the American government.
 
archives said:
That is not true, just showed you how even the right thought it accurate back when it became law, I think you are referring to those "legal minds" of the Heritage Foundation, who are more political than juridical
Click to expand...

wrong. you showed how 7 people (Rockefeller republicans) thought it was accurate

Ginsberg thought it was an overreach. A republican was leading the charge to reverse it

Joe Biden wanted to overturn it - so to claim the left is the same and the right has changed is a huge lie - which is all you liars know how to do anyway
 
Flash said:
The 9th says the people retain rights not enumerated in amendments 1-8. What is one of these rights?

Do you have a right to send your child to private school or use birth control?
Click to expand...

So, according to your illogical nonsense, I have the right to murder you?

Cool. No mention of it anywhere in the Constitution,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top