Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay. Still doesn't negate that it is the responsibility, and sole propriety, of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation in the US.No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.
The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.
You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.
That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?
Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.
Right?
While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.
US History - the Dred Scott case
- The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
- The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
Okay. Still doesn't negate that it is the responsibility, and sole propriety, of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation in the US.No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.
That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?
Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.
Right?
While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.
US History - the Dred Scott case
- The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
- The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
JUST because one doesn't like a ruling does not make it invalid, and does not negate the Supreme Court's authority to determine constitutionality.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
You're right, and when you disagree with a ruling, you have the option to file suit, and try to get a different outcome. However, since the closest challenge to the Loving v Virginia ruling in 49 years has been Obergefell v Hodges, and not only did the Court not overturn the earlier ruling, but, in fact, used the precedent as part of it's majority opinion, I'm afraid that it looks like your opinion of the Courts ruling in Loving v Virginia appears to be irrelevant in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. You're entitled whatever opinion you like, but their opinion trumps your in regards to the constitutionality of laws.Okay. Still doesn't negate that it is the responsibility, and sole propriety, of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation in the US.No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.
Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.
Right?
While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.
US History - the Dred Scott case
- The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
- The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
JUST because one doesn't like a ruling does not make it invalid, and does not negate the Supreme Court's authority to determine constitutionality.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
The Supreme Court may have the responsibility but it is far from being infallible. We "the people" ultimately have the final say in the long term and that's been my point all along.
Actually, you don't. That's why those retarded marriage laws failed. You thought "we the people" had the right to say "fuck the constitution", we can pass any laws we want. And the Supreme Court was right there to remind you "uh, no. You really can't,"Okay. Still doesn't negate that it is the responsibility, and sole propriety, of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation in the US.No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.
Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.
Right?
While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.
US History - the Dred Scott case
- The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
- The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
JUST because one doesn't like a ruling does not make it invalid, and does not negate the Supreme Court's authority to determine constitutionality.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
The Supreme Court may have the responsibility but it is far from being infallible. We "the people" ultimately have the final say in the long term and that's been my point all along.
You're right. I am among those. I have said repeatedly, that post-viability, abortion should be restricted. It is anti-choice asshats, and retards, like yourself, and ChuzRetard who aren't satisfied with that compromise, and want to insist that a clump of cells, 10 seconds after conception, is a "person", and want to ban all abortions.It turns out a supermajority of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade, but many of them don't even know it.
There are a lot of people who self-identify as "pro-choice" who believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, which puts them into direct conflict with Roe v. Wade.
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it."Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it."Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it."Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-choice, just pro-death, you really don't give a shit about life....as long as you force others to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
Thank God that your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the murder of a baby in the womb just for convenience. And contrary to your later statement regarding to mutilating women's bodies, legal abortions mutilate their bodies as much as pre Roe V Wade. You really should check on the the facts before making such a wild statement.Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)
So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
I agree! Trump is an ass, but then Hitlery the corporate whore is equally bad. I will vote green, and I hope all of Bernie's supporters will do the same. It is time we made a more reasonable political scenario.When it comes to trump, there is no reason to believe anything he has to say.Yes, he did, then quickly walked that back, saying he misunderstood the question, and, most recently, he insisted that he meant women who have abortions would punish themselves - I can only presume he meant emotionally. So there is really no reason to believe Trump would support any punishment for women having abortions.trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)
So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
Fortunately your opinion on the freedom of women to do with their bodies as they wish has even less relevance as mine, since mine carries with it the law of the land.Thank God that your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the murder of a baby in the womb just for convenience. And contrary to your later statement regarding to mutilating women's bodies, legal abortions mutilate their bodies as much as pre Roe V Wade. You really should check on the the facts before making such a wild statement.Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)
So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it."Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-choice, just pro-death, you really don't give a shit about life....as long as you force others to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
You make as much sense as most conservatives. Pro-death? Yeah, that's why I'm still alive because I'm pro-death. You're an idiot.
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it."Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-choice, just pro-death, you really don't give a shit about life....as long as you force others to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
You make as much sense as most conservatives. Pro-death? Yeah, that's why I'm still alive because I'm pro-death. You're an idiot.
You make as much sense as most left-wingers. Yes pro-death. You love it when children die. That's why you make any excuse for murdering a human child. You're an idiot.
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-choice, just pro-death, you really don't give a shit about life....as long as you force others to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
You make as much sense as most conservatives. Pro-death? Yeah, that's why I'm still alive because I'm pro-death. You're an idiot.
You make as much sense as most left-wingers. Yes pro-death. You love it when children die. That's why you make any excuse for murdering a human child. You're an idiot.
You're the one that supports the party that would like to end all help to the poor.....and they have "children"....but keep telling yourself that you are pro-life....when you really just want to appear holier-than-thou.
No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-life, just pro-birth, you really don't give a shit about life....if you have to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
No matter how you slice it, you really aren't pro-choice, just pro-death, you really don't give a shit about life....as long as you force others to spend any money. Talk is cheap.
You make as much sense as most conservatives. Pro-death? Yeah, that's why I'm still alive because I'm pro-death. You're an idiot.
You make as much sense as most left-wingers. Yes pro-death. You love it when children die. That's why you make any excuse for murdering a human child. You're an idiot.
You're the one that supports the party that would like to end all help to the poor.....and they have "children"....but keep telling yourself that you are pro-life....when you really just want to appear holier-than-thou.
If they banned abortions ID say put her in jail until she hits metapause. LolNow, I have to admit. I posed this question on a different forum, and only one anti-choice fanatic was willing to respond...
...and his responses were both frightening, and disturbing.
But if it is murder as you righties believe it is, shouldn't the doctor and the woman both be convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death?
The Doctor should be executed. He is the one who should know better and who actually committed the murderous act.
The woman is quite often making an emotional decision. As women are emotionally driven rather than ligical creatures, they cannot be expected to be as sensible as a Man. Therefore they are granted a lesser penalty.
So you want a woman to die because her pregnancy went wrong.
There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic ppregnanc.......
So the argument that a fertilized egg is life isn't a valid argument. Especially in an ectopic pregnancy.
Every year about 65 thousand ectopic pregnancies happen in America.
By your views, 65 thousand women should die.
How pro life.
Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)
So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
