So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

 

[oreo]

"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?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay. This is the first time to my memory--that a SCOTUS nominee as put this to bed once and for all by stating: Roe v Wade is precedent--meaning it's set in STONE.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Which of Obama's SC nominees did the Republicans filibuster? How many republicans voted for obamacare?

You are FOS as usual.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

 

[Redfish]

"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?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Jake's a typical liberal. They talk a mean line about diversity, but demand that you embrace their way or else.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Jake's a typical liberal. They talk a mean line about diversity, but demand that you embrace their way or else.

yep, the biggest hypocrites on the planet, and the most intolerant.

I don't think Jake and his sock rightwinger are actually people, they are probably computer programs that are set to repeat dem/lib talking points continuously.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Jake's a typical liberal. They talk a mean line about diversity, but demand that you embrace their way or else.

yep, the biggest hypocrites on the planet, and the most intolerant.

I don't think Jake and his sock rightwinger are actually people, they are probably computer programs that are set to repeat dem/lib talking points continuously.

Jake cracks me up... claims to be a conservative yet espouses every left-wing principle known to man.

 

[GaryDog]

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?

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.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

That's not the legal question, dumbass.

 

[oreo]

"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?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. and whatever else they come up with, but they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put their states AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

 

[Borillar]

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.

It seems to be your primary concern. It isn't in my top 10, but then I'm not a woman whose rights are being threatened. If you don't have a say in the most basic of your own biological functions, what freedom do you have? Once you mandate that pregnant women must carry to term no matter the circumstances, what else will you mandate?

 

[yiostheoy]

"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?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

 

[yiostheoy]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Jake's a typical liberal. They talk a mean line about diversity, but demand that you embrace their way or else.

yep, the biggest hypocrites on the planet, and the most intolerant.

I don't think Jake and his sock rightwinger are actually people, they are probably computer programs that are set to repeat dem/lib talking points continuously.

Jake cracks me up... claims to be a conservative yet espouses every left-wing principle known to man.

That's called "RINO" same as Trump.

 

[Borillar]

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?

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?

You're the one wanting the government to tell you what you must do. You're the one who wants women to lose their freedom now that your ilk is in charge. You are the one wanting to live in a dictatorship.

 

[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

Really?

Because Sen. Harry Reid highly respected the Filibuster?

Oh I agree -- Harry Reid shot the DEMs in the foot.

Now it's payback time.

In order to save the SCOTUS I am positive McConnell will sacrifice the filibuster rule for Gorsuch.

And he will need to again when RB Ginsberg croaks and Kennedy and Thomas retire soon. Now is their chance. Trump might not get re-elected. And McConnell might lose the Senate even sooner.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

That's not the legal question, dumbass.

Look shit-for-brains... if life begins at conception, how is aborting babies not murder?

Put down the bong and try and keep up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

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.

What qualifies a lawyer to decide when life begins?

What qualifies you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society" is not how America is governed.

Who the fuck is anyone to say that he does not want to live in America by the Constitution as adopted by the Founders? He can move to Iran.

The small minority is not going to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives.

 

[whitehall]

Everyone knows that Roe v Wade is based an a concept of "privacy" that does not exist in the Constitution but Gorsuch claims that it has been "reaffirmed" many times. So is that good news or bad news to the left? It's hard to tell these days.