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.
Negative…that is a fundamental duty of the parents. Although we productive positive contributors don’t let children die of starvation in this nation….like the 50% not paying taxes would.Which in itself is fine but I will note, we have this duty even after the life is born.
So you are saying Newsome is just trying to intimidate the Supreme Court to rule the way he thinks they should.Do you know enough about it to say whether or not it's a parallel to the Texas maneuver of the same nature?
Or is it possible that this would only work as a scare tactic that can move the Scotus back in the right direction?
Apparently, pknopp doesn't think it is the duty of the parents to take care of their own kids.Negative…that is a fundamental duty of the parents. Although we productive positive contributors don’t let children die of starvation in this nation….like the 50% not paying taxes would.
Such is a default position of the left….Bare in mind, he left that post right after he made the claim that he often takes the position of the right.Apparently, pknopp doesn't think it is the duty of the parents to take care of their own kids.
Interesting.
The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that upholding the Texas law would lead us here which is why they will not be upholding it in the end.
And yet the party of baby killing and begging continues to harvest more poor from around the globe.Children do not get to pick their parents. If left to many, many of the safeguards put in place to see that children are protected would be dismantled. Like school lunch programs for the poor.
I think there's a possibility that he would understand it as a quid pro quo only. It might work as that even if it doesn't work as a parallel to the Texas thing.So you are saying Newsome is just trying to intimidate the Supreme Court to rule the way he thinks they should.
The Scotus is most likely to the point at which they will go full kangaroo and disregard precedence of the Texas law.That makes him a bigger scumbag than before..............and he was one yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge scumbag before.
Link?
By default one would think a true “democracy” within a civil first world society would harbor a fundamental responsibility to protect the sanctity of life…no?I think there's a possibility that he would understand it as a quid pro quo only. It might work as that even if it doesn't work as a parallel to the Texas thing.
The Scotus is most likely to the point at which they will go full kangaroo and disregard precedence of the Texas law.
Legal precedence plays no part in the decisions of a fully corrupt court. Newsome has to be demonstrating faith in the Scotus, when there's a very good reason that he shouldn't be.
Sorry Nostra but I believe that fascism has taken hold in many different ways. The Texas thing getting by the Scotus was a huge blow to democracy.
Just my opinion.
They did using the reasoning that no law had been enforced yet nor was it properly filed. You will note that after it was refiled they took the case.
If the Scotus decided with Texas on the abortion gimmick, then there's no reason to think they would try to maintain some credibility and hold to the same precedence on guns.As I posted to Pknopp, it wasn't the whole court.
One judge said it.
Liberal justices warn that guns, same-sex marriage and religious rights could face limits if Texas wins abortion case - ABC17NEWS
By Tierney Sneed Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that constitutional rights enshrined in Supreme Court decisions concerning gun rights, same-sex marriage, birth control and other contentious issues could be open to attack depending on how the court handled the Texas abortion ban cases that were...abc17news.com
It was a liberal judge who said that.
Not the whole court.
There is no way to know how the court is going to rule on this.
Anyone who makes a prediction on it is being very premature.
We have to wait to find out.
A statement that the court SHOULD uphold nearly 50 years of precedence and constitutional rights is a correct one.
As we heard from the conservative judges with the Mississippi abortion ban law, they have no problem with throwing out decades of precedence.
It's doing harm to women in Texas and women in other states who can't get an abortion because the clinic in their state is full of women who have traveled from Texas.
The state has nothing to do with the enforcement. If one sues an abortion provider in Texas, it's not the state doing it.
