So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[iamwhatiseem]

Liberals are such loons.
Roe V Wade was 42 years ago.
Everyone knows it will never be overturned...never. But that doesn't stop the liberal loons from stirring up their base everytime a conservative'ish judge comes around.
OMG!! OMG!!! They will take abortion away!!!!!... AAAUUUGGGGGHHH!

Whether or not roe will actually ever be overturned is one thing (I believe it will be) . . . I have to ask. Do you agree that it SHOULD be overturned?

It doesn't matter what I think, it has been on the books for 42 years and it will stay there for another 42 and longer.
We need to put our outrage elsewhere. Like underemployment, corruption in Washington...the corporatocracy we have become.
Undoing Roe V Wade is absolutely never going to happen, and all the time we spend on it...which we are encouraged to do so by our corrupt "leaders" - both sides - so we don't spend that outrage in places that really can change.

 

[sakinago]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

This whole threads premise (Gorsech sees R V W as precedent, and is pro-choice), is a little ridiculous since he's going through the approval process, where they're trying to trip him up, and he's being very careful they have nothing to scream bloody murder about. I mean let's think about it. Or not and throw all you're eggs into that basket.

 

[Borillar]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

This whole threads premise (Gorsech sees R V W as precedent, and is pro-choice), is a little ridiculous since he's going through the approval process, where they're trying to trip him up, and he's being very careful they have nothing to scream bloody murder about. I mean let's think about it. Or not and throw all you're eggs into that basket.

Oh, I don't think he's pro choice. I just think he has some respect for precedent and might exercise some judicial restraint when it comes to overturning established rulings. That's probably the best we can hope for from this president.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

This whole threads premise (Gorsech sees R V W as precedent, and is pro-choice), is a little ridiculous since he's going through the approval process, where they're trying to trip him up, and he's being very careful they have nothing to scream bloody murder about. I mean let's think about it. Or not and throw all you're eggs into that basket.

Oh, I don't think he's pro choice. I just think he has some respect for precedent and might exercise some judicial restraint when it comes to overturning established rulings. That's probably the best we can hope for from this president.

It's refreshing actually.... he will skate in... Schumer will no doubt act like the ass that he is over it, but at the end of the day, that's all he will do, look like an ass.

 

[Redfish]

one more time libs, you say that a fetus does not become a person until the instant of birth. Can you please tell us what changes in that instant that did not exist the instant before?

If you cannot answer that, then your entire abortion rhetoric is bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

Only 29 states have a fetal homicide law.

Is Killing Pregnant Woman a Double Murder?

ok, 29 out of 50. last time I checked that was a majority.

I never said dickshit about a majority or minority. Bottom line, the law's existence is not proof of anything.

Matter of fact, I could argue the law's existence is more evidence of the pro-choice lobby's position, i.e. that bodily integrity and the fate of the fetus is left ONLY to the mother, and not to anyone else outside of her own body.

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

No, I am not responsible for you and you are not responsible for me. I don't want to take care of you and I don't want you taking care of me.

Its insane to think that society as a whole has a responsibility to take care of every person.

But you make that stupid claim and then come out in favor of abortion, hypocrisy is YOU.

You don't want to take care of anyone and don't want them taking care of you, but you're certainly willing to butt into their reproductive choices.

Redfish claims to be conservative but in fact is alt right, which means he gets to have conservative values apply to him but also gets to tell society how to live.

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

 

[Redfish]

Liberals are such loons.
Roe V Wade was 42 years ago.
Everyone knows it will never be overturned...never. But that doesn't stop the liberal loons from stirring up their base everytime a conservative'ish judge comes around.
OMG!! OMG!!! They will take abortion away!!!!!... AAAUUUGGGGGHHH!

Whether or not roe will actually ever be overturned is one thing (I believe it will be) . . . I have to ask. Do you agree that it SHOULD be overturned?

It doesn't matter what I think, it has been on the books for 42 years and it will stay there for another 42 and longer.
We need to put our outrage elsewhere. Like underemployment, corruption in Washington...the corporatocracy we have become.
Undoing Roe V Wade is absolutely never going to happen, and all the time we spend on it...which we are encouraged to do so by our corrupt "leaders" - both sides - so we don't spend that outrage in places that really can change.

I agree, I do not understand why abortion is the primary concern of liberals and democrats.

 

[Redfish]

[

Killing an adult is not abortion. Stay on track. I am for abortion rights as they presently exist, not for random murders of people already born.

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

This whole threads premise (Gorsech sees R V W as precedent, and is pro-choice), is a little ridiculous since he's going through the approval process, where they're trying to trip him up, and he's being very careful they have nothing to scream bloody murder about. I mean let's think about it. Or not and throw all you're eggs into that basket.

good points, but the reality is that the dems will oppose everything Trump tries to do. Party over country, every time with the dems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ok, 29 out of 50. last time I checked that was a majority.

I never said dickshit about a majority or minority. Bottom line, the law's existence is not proof of anything.

Matter of fact, I could argue the law's existence is more evidence of the pro-choice lobby's position, i.e. that bodily integrity and the fate of the fetus is left ONLY to the mother, and not to anyone else outside of her own body.

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

You don't want to take care of anyone and don't want them taking care of you, but you're certainly willing to butt into their reproductive choices.

Redfish claims to be conservative but in fact is alt right, which means he gets to have conservative values apply to him but also gets to tell society how to live.

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

 

[yiostheoy]

So the committee hearings are over after 4 days, and next it will go to the full Senate.

Schumer says he will filibuster.

Cruz says the GOP will use the nuclear option.

Boys and girls, from now on in 8th Grade History you will all learn that the U.S. Senate used to have a filibuster rule from 1806 to 2017.

It was instituted by VP Aaron Burr.

It was eliminated by Sen. Mitch McConnell under an 1892 SCOTUS ruling that only a majority of senators is required to change the Senate rules.

And the two words that you don't need to learn how to spell anymore are filibuster and cloture.



Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Killing a human is killing a human. Dehumanizing the victim by calling them "Juden" or "Fetus" in no way alters what is done.There are times when we kill humans, but those times MUST be rare, and subject to judicial review.

Killing a fetus is not killing a person, constitutionally. The Constitution affords no rights of personhood to the unborn.

Nor to women or Negroes.

It took further amendments to accomplish all that.

Well, pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.

This whole threads premise (Gorsech sees R V W as precedent, and is pro-choice), is a little ridiculous since he's going through the approval process, where they're trying to trip him up, and he's being very careful they have nothing to scream bloody murder about. I mean let's think about it. Or not and throw all you're eggs into that basket.

good points, but the reality is that the dems will oppose everything Trump tries to do. Party over country, every time with the dems.

Just as do the Republicans. That is the curse and course of party politics.

 

[yiostheoy]

Liberals are such loons.
Roe V Wade was 42 years ago.
Everyone knows it will never be overturned...never. But that doesn't stop the liberal loons from stirring up their base everytime a conservative'ish judge comes around.
OMG!! OMG!!! They will take abortion away!!!!!... AAAUUUGGGGGHHH!

Whether or not roe will actually ever be overturned is one thing (I believe it will be) . . . I have to ask. Do you agree that it SHOULD be overturned?

It doesn't matter what I think, it has been on the books for 42 years and it will stay there for another 42 and longer.
We need to put our outrage elsewhere. Like underemployment, corruption in Washington...the corporatocracy we have become.
Undoing Roe V Wade is absolutely never going to happen, and all the time we spend on it...which we are encouraged to do so by our corrupt "leaders" - both sides - so we don't spend that outrage in places that really can change.

Well as far as records go, records are meant to be broken.

The filibuster rule has been a Senate rule since 1806 -- 211 years.

It is about to become history.

 

[12icer]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Apparently Gorsuch agrees with ME.

Actually he may NOT AGREE WITH YOU and other pile of shit murdering liberals. He said he will not act like the liberal shit on the court, and try to DRAFT LEGISLATION from the bench, but will do the job he is supposed to, And that is just to determine the ACTUAL narrow line CONSTITUTIONALITY of the legislation, and how it is enforced.

 

[Fang]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

You completely misunderstand the judicial process. Judge Gorsuch's answer is spot on since the SCOTUS does make law, nor do they introduce Bills. Gorsuch gave the historical answer on Roe vs Wade. He is not passing judgement on any future law in regards to abortion that might be passed by Congress and the President.

 

[12icer]

I never said dickshit about a majority or minority. Bottom line, the law's existence is not proof of anything.

Matter of fact, I could argue the law's existence is more evidence of the pro-choice lobby's position, i.e. that bodily integrity and the fate of the fetus is left ONLY to the mother, and not to anyone else outside of her own body.

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

Redfish claims to be conservative but in fact is alt right, which means he gets to have conservative values apply to him but also gets to tell society how to live.

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

Actually the judiciary does NOT make those decisions. If you don't understand and KNOW that then that is why you have the opinion you hold. I fell sad for those like you because when we look at you all we see is MURDERER written on YOUR forehead IN BIG RED LETTERS.

As for his statement, FANG is spot on,, R v W has been ruled on, that does not prevent an eventual law passing that defines Life as beginning at conception and restoring the rights of the children that are being murdered daily. Actually it isn't hard to understand the liberal position as they hide the murders of hundreds and even thousands of BLACK children in their liberal controlled plantation cities yearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

12icer, when the legislature is not clear or the legislation is unconstitutional, then, yes, the judiciary makes those decisions.

Alt Right and Far Right like you try and fail to change the meaning of words.

Abortion is a medical term.

Murder is a legal term.

 

[12icer]

Actually you need to learn to read A dictionary, and they are used in BOTH venues, Just ask an Emerency room doctor, or EMT as I was one years ago. Murder is definitely a Medical term., Abortion is Definitely a legal term, so your point is absolutely without merit. The fact is maybe liberals should read the transcripts of the RVW case, and IF a law were drafted to give standing to the unborn CHILD, the same reasons for the granting abortion rights to a letter would apply to the child and the person requesting an abortion would have to have permission or a request from the CHILD to have an abortion, or it would be in violation of the CHILDS rights By the findings of the majority opinion. I have yet to understand why the lawyers filing to overturn RVW have not simply used the precedent to STOP abortion on it's merits..

 

[Redfish]

I never said dickshit about a majority or minority. Bottom line, the law's existence is not proof of anything.

Matter of fact, I could argue the law's existence is more evidence of the pro-choice lobby's position, i.e. that bodily integrity and the fate of the fetus is left ONLY to the mother, and not to anyone else outside of her own body.

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

Redfish claims to be conservative but in fact is alt right, which means he gets to have conservative values apply to him but also gets to tell society how to live.

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. When a civilization has an issue where there are differing opinions and beliefs, they vote. Judges do NOT decide what is moral and acceptable behavior, civilization as a whole makes those decisions.

WTF is wrong with you, why to you want to live in a dictatorship? Why do you want the government telling you what you must believe and how you must live?
Think, fool. your liberal ideology may not always hold sway. Are you willing to deal with giving up your freedoms when your guys aren't in charge?

 

[Redfish]

12icer, when the legislature is not clear or the legislation is unconstitutional, then, yes, the judiciary makes those decisions.

Alt Right and Far Right like you try and fail to change the meaning of words.

Abortion is a medical term.

Murder is a legal term.

the ignorance displayed it that post does not merit response. Jakey boy, you are out of your league here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the committee hearings are over after 4 days, and next it will go to the full Senate.

Schumer says he will filibuster.

Cruz says the GOP will use the nuclear option.

Boys and girls, from now on in 8th Grade History you will all learn that the U.S. Senate used to have a filibuster rule from 1806 to 2017.

It was instituted by VP Aaron Burr.

It was eliminated by Sen. Mitch McConnell under an 1892 SCOTUS ruling that only a majority of senators is required to change the Senate rules.

And the two words that you don't need to learn how to spell anymore are filibuster and cloture.



Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

Really?

Because Sen. Harry Reid highly respected the Filibuster?