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.
You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.this is where i think sooner or later we need to come to a consensus and let it go. so i agree that once we've decided it, why take it up again only when you feel you can reverse it? all that means is later when the SCOTUS tilts again, we bring it back and change it. again.Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.
Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?
The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.
.
If the DOJ assesses Schumer’s statement as a legit threat then Barr could arrest him. Why hasn’t that happened you may ask?? Well because it wasn’t that kind of threat and you’re doing bullshit political hyperbole. Now go take a nap, you’re ill equipped for this discussion.
Women's Health was not the first, but certainly the most egregious thus far, example of a regulation without any medical justification. In a sense those who argued Roe must be upheld on stare decisis grounds were outmaneuvered because for the anti-choice folks, they can make abortion unavailable in any state that would ban it, and they can avoid making it a political issue in any state where it might disadvantage the gopWhat specific threat did Schumer actually make against gorsuch or kavanaugh? Moreover, these justices have a bias. Recusal? The orange whore demands recusral in cases involving him.
d
In the Whole Womens' Health case, the leading medical professional organizations filed amicus briefs arguing that the law at issue was unnecessary and bogus. The justices known to be "conservative" did not even read them and never asked any question of the attorney arguing for the state of Texas, even though the justices are supposed to be neutral.
Thanks for that sterling example of irrational, raging hatred coursing through the veins of a Trumpleton cultist. Triggered much?Schumer attempted to cover his ass....and lied about it. he claimed he was speaking to the President and Senate Republicans but called out Gorsuch and Kavanaugh BY NAME... An objective person would acknowledge this while a partisan party apologist would attempt to help the b@st@rd attempt to dupe others into buying the BS.
Case with same scenario in Texas a couple of years ago. SC said they couldn't force abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.this is where i think sooner or later we need to come to a consensus and let it go. so i agree that once we've decided it, why take it up again only when you feel you can reverse it? all that means is later when the SCOTUS tilts again, we bring it back and change it. again.Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.Kavenaugh Thomas and Alito all form their opinions on Roe by virtue of their religion. I mean why would they find a religious exemption to people getting FREE HC via an employer as a basis to challenge covering IUDs. Or employers complaining that the govt mandates all HC plans cover them? If THAT's a right, how come abortion is a right that State's can pass laws making them unattainable unless docs have admitting privileges to hospitals that will NEVER grant the privilege to a doc who openly performs abortions?
Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?
The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.
.
Thanks for that sterling example of irrational, raging hatred coursing through the veins of a Trumpleton cultist. Triggered much?
I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
He didn't threaten them WITH anything.The orange whore demanded recusal.
“I want to kill you” (which he did not say) does not mean I want to kill your spirit or your movement. It means I want to make you dead.
I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
He didn't threaten them WITH anything.The orange whore demanded recusal.
I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
He didn't threaten them WITH anything.The orange whore demanded recusal.
Schumer threatened two SC Justices with an unruly leftist mob. President Trump was perfectly within his rights to ask those Justices to recuse themselves. That was in no way a threat.
Case with same scenario in Texas a couple of years ago. SC said they couldn't force abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.this is where i think sooner or later we need to come to a consensus and let it go. so i agree that once we've decided it, why take it up again only when you feel you can reverse it? all that means is later when the SCOTUS tilts again, we bring it back and change it. again.Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.
Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?
The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.
.
I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
He didn't threaten them WITH anything.The orange whore demanded recusal.
Schumer threatened two SC Justices with an unruly leftist mob. President Trump was perfectly within his rights to ask those Justices to recuse themselves. That was in no way a threat.
What was the act that he threatened them with?
He threatened them with paying a price (we all know what that means unless deliberately choosing not to) and that such price paying they would never see coming (like a hit)I see Schumer is claiming he didn't mean to threaten the SC justices when he quite clearly named them and threatened them. Basically the guy slipped up and blurted out loud what he was really feeling and now refuses to won up to it.
He didn't threaten them WITH anything.The orange whore demanded recusal.
Schumer threatened two SC Justices with an unruly leftist mob. President Trump was perfectly within his rights to ask those Justices to recuse themselves. That was in no way a threat.
What was the act that he threatened them with?
