FLDS - Abortion Hypocrites

[Larkinn]

She is forcing the opinion that everyone should get to decide for themselves .

See how thats different from forcing the opinion that nobody can have an abortion cause Dread and Shogun think its wrong ?

One allows personal choice, one doesn't.

Simple really.

 

[dread]

She is forcing the opinion that everyone should get to decide for themselves .

See how thats different from forcing the opinion that nobody can have an abortion cause Dread and Shogun think its wrong ?

One allows personal choice, one doesn't.

Simple really.

So you agree that Jillian is FORCING an opinion on others.


Funny how that hypocracy only works for the libs!

 

[Larkinn]

Everything is forcing an opinion, dipshit. But its the difference between forcing freedom and forcing restrictions. I know freedom makes you uncomfortable, but surely you can embrace it once in a while?

 

[Shogun]

Yeah, the Constitution sucks...

too bad it doesn't protect smoking, right, bubbalah?

Did you show me where abortions are mentioned like Property rights yet?


oh.. no, i ugess you'd rather call me an antisemite than brave that, eh?

 

[Shogun]

Everything is forcing an opinion, dipshit. But its the difference between forcing freedom and forcing restrictions. I know freedom makes you uncomfortable, but surely you can embrace it once in a while?

oh well THATs some zen gold. what, did you have chinese food last night and get a particularly candid fortune cookie?

make excuses for your own tyranny, dude. It's probably not a knee slapping joke at this point.

 

[jillian]

Did you show me where abortions are mentioned like Property rights yet?


oh.. no, i ugess you'd rather call me an antisemite than brave that, eh?

Huh? The Constitution only protect property rights? I'd suggest these cases... not that you'd understand them....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZC.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

 

[Larkinn]

Did you show me where abortions are mentioned like Property rights yet?


oh.. no, i ugess you'd rather call me an antisemite than brave that, eh?

Going to say the same shit on multiple threads?

As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't see the right. Why? The Constitution gives your view 0 weight like any sensible document or individual would. However the USSC does see that right inherent in the Constitution. The USSC > you.

make excuses for your own tyranny, dude. It's probably not a knee slapping joke at this point.

Haha, tyranny?

Explain to us all how allowing individuals to make their own choices without interference from the government is tyranny

 

[Shogun]

Huh? The Constitution only protect property rights? I'd suggest these cases... not that you'd understand them....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZC.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Did I SAY that the Con only protected property rights? Or, did I CLEARLY ask you to show me which is actually STATED in the Con?


go ahead and neg rep me for this one too. Im probably not laughing at you right now.

 

[Shogun]

Going to say the same shit on multiple threads?

As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't see the right. Why? The Constitution gives your view 0 weight like any sensible document or individual would. However the USSC does see that right inherent in the Constitution. The USSC > you.



Haha, tyranny?

Explain to us all how allowing individuals to make their own choices without interference from the government is tyranny

HA!

yea, the process by which legislation is passed into LAW sure doesn't give this back swinging pendulum any weight, eh?




When the individual makes the choice to kill another individual legally while pretending that the will of the people supports wanton baby murder, it's tyranny.


But, if you wrap yourself up in a che guevera flag you too can be imprevious to anything but your own personal opinon outside of the legislative process as spelled out in, yup, the Constition.

 

[jillian]

HA!

yea, the process by which legislation is passed into LAW sure doesn't give this back swinging pendulum any weight, eh?




When the individual makes the choice to kill another individual legally while pretending that the will of the people supports wanton baby murder, it's tyranny.


But, if you wrap yourself up in a che guevera flag you too can be imprevious to anything but your own personal opinon outside of the legislative process as spelled out in, yup, the Constition.

Judicial review trumps legislation

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137

 

[Shogun]

Judicial review trumps legislation

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137

statements like that are why you disagree with the Scalias and Roberts and Alitos on the bench.

among others.

 

[Larkinn]

Did I SAY that the Con only protected property rights? Or, did I CLEARLY ask you to show me which is actually STATED in the Con?

Again, retard. The USSC decides what the Constitution says NOT YOU.

yea, the process by which legislation is passed into LAW sure doesn't give this back swinging pendulum any weight, eh?

No, it doesn't The Constitution, and the USSC's right to interpret that Constitution trumps any law Congress can pass.

Learn how your own damn government works, retard.

When the individual makes the choice to kill another individual legally while pretending that the will of the people supports wanton baby murder, it's tyranny.

Wait, doesn't the will of the people want to keep Roe v. Wade?

Bam, bitch.

But, if you wrap yourself up in a che guevera flag you too can be imprevious to anything but your own personal opinon outside of the legislative process as spelled out in, yup, the Constition.

Marbury v. Madison. As I said, learn a little bit about how our government works.

 

[Shogun]

Again, retard. The USSC decides what the Constitution says NOT YOU.

I never said I did. This is why I post evidence that doesn't need a good once over before being wrapped up in your opinon.




No, it doesn't The Constitution, and the USSC's right to interpret that Constitution trumps any law Congress can pass.

Learn how your own damn government works, retard.

and, courts change. Like you were sweating it out in 06. Indeed, learn who is moving three steps ahead of you.





Wait, doesn't the will of the people want to keep Roe v. Wade?

Bam, bitch.


Not as some open hunting season on baby killing. But, of course, this is where you tend to ignore the words "MORE RESTRICTIVE"...






Marbury v. Madison. As I said, learn a little bit about how our government works.



HA!

if you are so confident then why do you even waste your time on this thread?


PROBABLY for the same reason the single question litmus test for Roberts and Alito became your palm-sweating moment in 06. I'll share this laugh when you figure out how impervious RvW isn't.

 

[Larkinn]

statements like that are why you disagree with the Scalias and Roberts and Alitos on the bench.

among others.

Feel free to disagree with. That doesn't mean its not law or somehow needs legislation to make it law.

I never said I did. This is why I post evidence that doesn't need a good once over before being wrapped up in your opinon.

Then why exactly are you demanding evidence in the Constitution of Abortion? They saw it. Whether you see it or not means exactly nothing.

and, courts change. Like you were sweating it out in 06. Indeed, learn who is moving three steps ahead of you.

Yes they do. They could allow even more abortions

Not as some open hunting season on baby killing. But, of course, this is where you tend to ignore the words "MORE RESTRICTIVE"...

I've addressed this ad nauseum. More restrictive? HOW MUCH more restrictive? You have no idea.

if you are so confident then why do you even waste your time on this thread?

Fun. Its finals time for me and its relaxing to wipe your sorry ass all over the board.

PROBABLY for the same reason the single question litmus test for Roberts and Alito became your palm-sweating moment in 06. I'll share this laugh when you figure out how impervious RvW isn't.

Ah yes, your doing your miss cleo impersonation again on what will happen in the future? Cute. But your opinion as to what will happen means shit.

 

[jillian]

statements like that are why you disagree with the Scalias and Roberts and Alitos on the bench.

among others.

Because they're trying to destroy hundreds of years of stare decisis... yes.
And my statement was accurate.

But only a retard thinks they mean it...

while all of the justices used their power of judicial review proactively and in ideological predictable ways, the judicial “conservatives” sitting on the Rehnquist Natural Court were much more likely than their “liberal” counterparts to invalidate federal legislation and overturn precedent, while the “liberals” were more likely to invalidate state laws

http://www.uky.edu/Law/faculty/ringhand/JudicialActivismforTX.pdf

 

[Shogun]

*sigh*


THAT court saw it. During the aftermath of the civil rights era, no less. If you think their ruling is eternal then, again, strap yourself in and enjoy the ride.

after all, CLEARLY, "MORE RESTRICTIONS" conveys MORE abortion!





and, learn how our fucking government works.





say that you are kicking my ass again, dude.. it's the cherry on top of this comedy sundae.

 

[Shogun]

Because they're trying to destroy hundreds of years of stare decisis... yes.
And my statement was accurate.

But only a retard thinks they mean it...



http://www.uky.edu/Law/faculty/ringhand/JudicialActivismforTX.pdf

Guess what YOUR opinion about Scalia and company's motives mean legally?

jack shit? did you cover that lesson in law school?

And, you are trying to legalize killing a genetic human individual for the sake of irresponsible sexual behaviour. Privacy doesn't validate killing kids. It's simply not in the Constition like PROPERTY RIGHTS are. You can assume what you need too and try to scream bloody evil at Scalia but, then, he thinks the same thing about your wanton judicial activism. A practice that was CLEARLY not indended by founding fathers since it nullifies democracy in the legislative process. Hey, I bet if you neg rep me this will be less true!


and dont forget to tell me what an antisemite, woman hating retard MUST mean again because you have been so close to reality already!

 

[jillian]

Do you read anything? Ever?

And stamping your widdle feet and bullying might work with other people. It doesn't work with me... but do coninue to have fun... you've still been proven wrong about everything you've said. You've been made to look absurd and you've shown yourself for the irrational control freak we know you to be.

*hugs*

 

[AllieBaba]

That's great, Jilly, but doesn't make you appear any more knowledgeable or talk to the issue.

 

[jillian]

That's great, Jilly, but doesn't make you appear any more knowledgeable or talk to the issue.

In other words, you have no understanding of anything that's been said.

Thanks for playing sweet pea.