Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 10 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
Doesn't it come down to "The Will of the People"? Depending on which pole you believe, 60 to 70% of Americans believe it's a woman that has the right to choose.

When the majority feel a certain way, why would politicians (who work for us) bend the rules to the minority opinion.

I've said this before,, not sure who heard it.. But I don't care for Abortion.. I would never want my child to be aborted.

But, at the end of the day, it's not my body and it's not my choice and I'm sticking to it.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
No, its not your body and its not the woman's body or any responsible persons body that is at stake.

It is the developing person's body which if left alone to nature, will develop into a person.

There lies the innocence we must protect from artificial and untimely death.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
W
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
W
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
Abortion is - and always has been - a states' rights issue as any connection to the Constitution is fantasy. The SC is NOT banning abortion - no matter how much breath and how many lies are told about the issue. The SC is NOT 'legislating from the bench'...as a matter of fact...they are removing PRIOR 'legislating from the bench'. The SC in 1973 should have left the issue to the states.

Regardless of which "side" one is on, any rational thinking and understand of our (3) branches of government should have all anger/support thrown at our elected legislators for sitting on their hands and butts for the last 50 years...or more. The vitriol being thrown at the SC is misguided.

1 member likes this: 40YEARSWAITING
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
conservatives really trying to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,916
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,916
Likes: 1296
No Daman, when it comes to the SCOTUS "the will of the people" has nothing to do with it. At least it's not supposed to. It's about the law. If "the will of the people" had anything to do with it marijuana would have been legal in all 50 states long ago.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
1 member likes this: GMdawg
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Originally Posted by Swish
conservatives really trying to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality.

But they can't see it. I bet when that Senators daughter gets knocked up in her Junior year of high school, then abortion will be A OKAY. But when poor girls get in trouble, well they'll have to face the consequences. Poor cogs in the wheel need to be replenished. I don't think these guys even know what they are trying to give away. If this was 2 A being tossed, a right they cherish, then they'd have a different tune. But since this is what they want, they are cool with it. They couldn't be bothered to wear a mask, but expect women to sacrifice their lives for children they never wanted. You really can't make this crap up. But there are some tooting their horns that will have a different outlook when this hits home.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 05/08/22 03:39 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by WSU Willie
Abortion is - and always has been - a states' rights issue as any connection to the Constitution is fantasy. The SC is NOT banning abortion - no matter how much breath and how many lies are told about the issue. The SC is NOT 'legislating from the bench'...as a matter of fact...they are removing PRIOR 'legislating from the bench'. The SC in 1973 should have left the issue to the states.

Regardless of which "side" one is on, any rational thinking and understand of our (3) branches of government should have all anger/support thrown at our elected legislators for sitting on their hands and butts for the last 50 years...or more. The vitriol being thrown at the SC is misguided.

Yes, the will of the people is better heard at the State level.

I have heard many proposals from States if this issue comes back to them.

Everything from the current deliver and kill late term abortions allowed by Row to the 15 weeks cutoff to the outright ban.

Let the people decide where they stand.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
There is a term for living creatures who are not permitted to control their own reproduction. That term is "livestock."


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
W
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
W
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
Originally Posted by Swish
conservatives really trying to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality.

But they can't see it. I bet when that Senators daughter gets knocked up in her Junior year of high school, then abortion will be A OKAY. But when poor girls get in trouble, well they'll have to face the consequences. Poor cogs in the wheel need to be replenished. I don't think these guys even know what they are trying to give away. If this was 2 A being tossed, a right they cherish, then they'd have a different tune. But since this is what they want, they are cool with it. They couldn't be bothered to wear a mask, but expect women to sacrifice their lives for children they never wanted. You really can't make this crap up. But there are some tooting their horns that will have a different outlook when this hits home.

The SC is NOT considering banning abortion...they simply and factually are NOT.

2A is actually IN the Constitution.

Masks don't work and have/has/had been mandated...abortions do work and no one is forced to have one. Vaccines for many has been mandated yet for many it didn't work...again...no one makes another person have an abortion. Mandating what one MUST do versus what one must NOT do is very different IMO.

Conservatives don't want abortion and/or don't want to have conversation on when/why abortion could/would/should be legal. They are concerned - rightfully so - that the definition of what is allowed will expand to the point that is has actually become.

Democrats don't want ANY restrictions on abortion...what was thought "agreeable" in '73 was NOT partial birth...late term...or after birth abortions. They are concerned - rightfully so - that a crack in the foundation of abortion becomes a crack in other, similar issues that the federal government should not be involved in.

BOTH side are too wrapped up in their ideologies to make meaningful legislation. Abortion is clearly a states' rights issue...where it can be best debated and legislated to the will of the people who vote for their representatives. JMO

1 member likes this: FATE
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
That's how the right looks at women.,, Livestock.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
The real pesky fact is quotes that are made up or taken out of context. Just a quick search under the Jefferson one shows quotes either misrepresented on just made up.

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln 1860

1 member likes this: 40YEARSWAITING
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,784
Likes: 922
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,784
Likes: 922
What a bunch of BS. Did you make that up or just copy it from somewhere?


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Just shared a meme. It's as solid as ANY Right wing crap I've seen posted for years.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/509929-if-therefore-from-the-settlement-of-the-saxons-to-the

Adams
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70319-as-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-is

Not going to prove every statement, but looks like true quotes to me. Sorry GOPers, try harder, bring receipts.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 05/09/22 05:50 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
I swear, if men could get pregnant, you'd be able to get an abortion at any Starbucks......


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
2 members like this: mgh888, OldColdDawg
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by WSU Willie
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
Originally Posted by Swish
conservatives really trying to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality.

But they can't see it. I bet when that Senators daughter gets knocked up in her Junior year of high school, then abortion will be A OKAY. But when poor girls get in trouble, well they'll have to face the consequences. Poor cogs in the wheel need to be replenished. I don't think these guys even know what they are trying to give away. If this was 2 A being tossed, a right they cherish, then they'd have a different tune. But since this is what they want, they are cool with it. They couldn't be bothered to wear a mask, but expect women to sacrifice their lives for children they never wanted. You really can't make this crap up. But there are some tooting their horns that will have a different outlook when this hits home.

The SC is NOT considering banning abortion...they simply and factually are NOT.

2A is actually IN the Constitution.

Masks don't work and have/has/had been mandated...abortions do work and no one is forced to have one. Vaccines for many has been mandated yet for many it didn't work...again...no one makes another person have an abortion. Mandating what one MUST do versus what one must NOT do is very different IMO.

Conservatives don't want abortion and/or don't want to have conversation on when/why abortion could/would/should be legal. They are concerned - rightfully so - that the definition of what is allowed will expand to the point that is has actually become.

Democrats don't want ANY restrictions on abortion...what was thought "agreeable" in '73 was NOT partial birth...late term...or after birth abortions. They are concerned - rightfully so - that a crack in the foundation of abortion becomes a crack in other, similar issues that the federal government should not be involved in.

BOTH side are too wrapped up in their ideologies to make meaningful legislation. Abortion is clearly a states' rights issue...where it can be best debated and legislated to the will of the people who vote for their representatives. JMO

They can't and won't hear you as all their Media outlets are pumping the end of Abortion.

I like this one best...

MSNBC political analyst: Supreme Court draft opinion threatens not just women, but 'anyone with a uterus'
Tolliver accused Republicans of trying to take 'this basic right away'

Tell the lie enough times and the uninformed will believe it.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
j/c

I'm just curious about something I think very well may be the next step in banning abortions by women even if they leave a state where abortion is illegal and travel to state where it is legal. Here is some information describing that possibility actaully happening.......

Quote
Prosecutors could argue that as long as some part of the crime took place in the state, then they are allowed to have jurisdiction and developing the guilty intent to travel may be enough, Cohen said.

If a young woman and her best friend decide in Missouri they’re traveling to Illinois to get an abortion, the criminal intent has taken place in Missouri, he said.

‘Plausible Strategy’

Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.

S.B. 8 bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which abortion advocates have argued violates the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion, but no court has been able to stop it because it’s enforced by private parties through civil litigation, not government officials.

Coleman’s proposal didn’t get a vote in the House this year, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers in Missouri and in other Republican-led states won’t consider it in the future. An attorney involved in abortion litigation, who requested anonymity for personal safety reasons, said the only way to control abortion travel may be to enact a law like the one Coleman proposed.

“That’s the only plausible strategy I can see for anti-abortion lawmakers if they want to stop abortion tourism,” the attorney said.

“If they just say it’s illegal to leave the state to get an abortion, someone can sue and challenge the constitutionality of the statute. If they do it the way Mary Elizabeth Coleman drafted it, by this sort of private civil enforcement, it can’t be challenged in court pre-enforcement.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...s-emerge-as-next-frontier-after-roes-end

So what does everyone think about this? Should any state who outlaws abortion in their own state have the right to make or enforce any laws, be they criminal or civil, to travel to a state where it is legal to get an abortion? Because some of you say it won't be illegal, you only have to have it done in a state where it's legal. I think many of us understand that the next war on abortion will be to prevent anyone living in your state from getting an abortion anywhere in America.


I have thought about this and a few other things.

At best, I think the most likely outcome is that the case will wind up back in the Supreme Court under Article III Section 2 as a dispute between States/Citizens.

The clause in the Constitution is as follows, but it clearly references disputes between States/Citizens.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

I think that because this is a "rights" issue, it will wind up back where it started. Simply saying that I don't think the consequences of having State Determination is going to hold.

It is not a position for/against on my part, it is more statement to a flawed argument on the part of Alito that makes this a State by State decision

Last edited by WooferDawg; 05/09/22 08:52 PM. Reason: font highlight

There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Likes: 906
V
Legend
Offline
Legend
V
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Likes: 906
j/c:

I have never once shared my beliefs about abortion on this board, nor will I now and in the future. It's a very private matter for me and my loved ones. What I will say is that I don't like the extremists on either side. For example, I always hated how anti-abortion protesters would attack abortion clinics. Throwing blood on them, beating them, and even murdering them. What? You are against killing an unborn child and you murder others? Whacked! Likewise, this stupid argument that some are making about how right-wing males don't respect women and want to control their uterus is insane.

Have any of you ever thought that the decision is a private matter and broad-sweeping generalizations about one side of the other is unfair? There are extenuating circumstances to all of these situations. Stop playing God and telling us what is right or wrong w/out examining the particulars of the each individual situation.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668




Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Originally Posted by WooferDawg
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
j/c

I'm just curious about something I think very well may be the next step in banning abortions by women even if they leave a state where abortion is illegal and travel to state where it is legal. Here is some information describing that possibility actaully happening.......

Quote
Prosecutors could argue that as long as some part of the crime took place in the state, then they are allowed to have jurisdiction and developing the guilty intent to travel may be enough, Cohen said.

If a young woman and her best friend decide in Missouri they’re traveling to Illinois to get an abortion, the criminal intent has taken place in Missouri, he said.

‘Plausible Strategy’

Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.

S.B. 8 bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which abortion advocates have argued violates the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion, but no court has been able to stop it because it’s enforced by private parties through civil litigation, not government officials.

Coleman’s proposal didn’t get a vote in the House this year, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers in Missouri and in other Republican-led states won’t consider it in the future. An attorney involved in abortion litigation, who requested anonymity for personal safety reasons, said the only way to control abortion travel may be to enact a law like the one Coleman proposed.

“That’s the only plausible strategy I can see for anti-abortion lawmakers if they want to stop abortion tourism,” the attorney said.

“If they just say it’s illegal to leave the state to get an abortion, someone can sue and challenge the constitutionality of the statute. If they do it the way Mary Elizabeth Coleman drafted it, by this sort of private civil enforcement, it can’t be challenged in court pre-enforcement.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...s-emerge-as-next-frontier-after-roes-end

So what does everyone think about this? Should any state who outlaws abortion in their own state have the right to make or enforce any laws, be they criminal or civil, to travel to a state where it is legal to get an abortion? Because some of you say it won't be illegal, you only have to have it done in a state where it's legal. I think many of us understand that the next war on abortion will be to prevent anyone living in your state from getting an abortion anywhere in America.


I have thought about this and a few other things.

At best, I think the most likely outcome is that the case will wind up back in the Supreme Court under Article III Section 2 as a dispute between States/Citizens.

The clause in the Constitution is as follows, but it clearly references disputes between States/Citizens.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

I think that because this is a "rights" issue, it will wind up back where it started. Simply saying that I don't think the consequences of having State Determination is going to hold.

It is not a position for/against on my part, it is more statement to a flawed argument on the part of Alito that makes this a State by State decision


I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,942
Likes: 762
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,942
Likes: 762
Originally Posted by Jester
I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.

They cannot.


Browns is the Browns

... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,004
Likes: 128
"
Tell the lie enough times and the uninformed will believe it."

A lesson you'd to well to learn


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
W
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
W
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,117
Likes: 222
Originally Posted by WooferDawg
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
j/c

I'm just curious about something I think very well may be the next step in banning abortions by women even if they leave a state where abortion is illegal and travel to state where it is legal. Here is some information describing that possibility actaully happening.......

Quote
Prosecutors could argue that as long as some part of the crime took place in the state, then they are allowed to have jurisdiction and developing the guilty intent to travel may be enough, Cohen said.

If a young woman and her best friend decide in Missouri they’re traveling to Illinois to get an abortion, the criminal intent has taken place in Missouri, he said.

‘Plausible Strategy’

Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.

S.B. 8 bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which abortion advocates have argued violates the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion, but no court has been able to stop it because it’s enforced by private parties through civil litigation, not government officials.

Coleman’s proposal didn’t get a vote in the House this year, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers in Missouri and in other Republican-led states won’t consider it in the future. An attorney involved in abortion litigation, who requested anonymity for personal safety reasons, said the only way to control abortion travel may be to enact a law like the one Coleman proposed.

“That’s the only plausible strategy I can see for anti-abortion lawmakers if they want to stop abortion tourism,” the attorney said.

“If they just say it’s illegal to leave the state to get an abortion, someone can sue and challenge the constitutionality of the statute. If they do it the way Mary Elizabeth Coleman drafted it, by this sort of private civil enforcement, it can’t be challenged in court pre-enforcement.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...s-emerge-as-next-frontier-after-roes-end

So what does everyone think about this? Should any state who outlaws abortion in their own state have the right to make or enforce any laws, be they criminal or civil, to travel to a state where it is legal to get an abortion? Because some of you say it won't be illegal, you only have to have it done in a state where it's legal. I think many of us understand that the next war on abortion will be to prevent anyone living in your state from getting an abortion anywhere in America.


I have thought about this and a few other things.

At best, I think the most likely outcome is that the case will wind up back in the Supreme Court under Article III Section 2 as a dispute between States/Citizens.

The clause in the Constitution is as follows, but it clearly references disputes between States/Citizens.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

I think that because this is a "rights" issue, it will wind up back where it started. Simply saying that I don't think the consequences of having State Determination is going to hold.

It is not a position for/against on my part, it is more statement to a flawed argument on the part of Alito that makes this a State by State decision

Interesting info there. You opined that Alito's argument of abortion being a states' rights issue is flawed due to Article III Section 2 noted above. However, wouldn't the issue have to first go to the states to uncover the disputes and THEN determine the SC's role, if any, in that dispute? (I know there are already disputes...but the process is still the process.) Honestly looking for an opinion there and not a fight.

Also, what would the SC rule on if there is no legislation to consider what would resolve the dispute between states/citizens? Again, I know Roe V Wade exists(ed), but it was done all wrong and outside the Constitution...or I may better say outside the Constitutional process. Meaning that in '73 the SC skipped ahead to Article III Section 2 in its over-reach to get to the end result. At least that's how I understand it.

Thanks for posting the Article III Section 2 info...I knew (maybe wanted-to-believe) that there was a way to get national "consensus" among states' rights issues.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 10,938
Likes: 1779
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 10,938
Likes: 1779
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg


A seditious insurrectionist inciting violence against a branch of the federal government, right?

Lock her up and throw away the key.


HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
2 members like this: EveDawg, WSU Willie
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Originally Posted by PrplPplEater
Originally Posted by Jester
I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.

They cannot.

But that is what they are doing. The Texas law makes it illegal to leave Texas and go to another state and get an abortion.
Other states will assuredly follow suit


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by PrplPplEater
Originally Posted by Jester
I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.

They cannot.

Not so fast there fella, we now have laws for thee but not for me in this country...


Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" with the "intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Originally Posted by FATE
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg


A seditious insurrectionist inciting violence against a branch of the federal government, right?

Lock her up and throw away the key.

Okay, Q.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,916
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,916
Likes: 1296
Originally Posted by Jester
I don't understand how one state can legislate what you can and cannot do in another state.

Here is an example of what I am speaking of. This includes not only Missouri but Texas law as well.....

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
I understand what you are referring to. What I don't understand is how that is allowed.


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
So Abortion is a states rights issue...... Unless Republicans can somehow engineer a national ban and then it's not a states rights issue.

Sick and twisted shysters.


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
If they overturn Roe vs Wade then it once again becomes a States issue.


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...ion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned


Funny. When asked about overturning Roe vs Wade the new justices all answered as if it was settled law and "impossible" to overturn and yet here we are.... So Befire you say what Moscow mitch suggested is impossible.....


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Quote
Broad support for abortion rights: Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.
[

Are those the same polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide?


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
I would like to ask those of you who read these boards but don't post, and those who read but don't post often to respond. Do you see those who are against abortion making personal attacks against those who are for abortion, or do you see people who are for abortion bashing those personally who are against abortion? I would really like to know.


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
WSU

You have the basic premise of my opinion correct.

Yes, there is an element of Alito's argument, that kicks the topic back down to the State, and there is inevitable that the States/Citizens will get into disputes, and the case will wind up back into the Supreme Court as it can be viewed/seen as a "right" involving "individual choice" that needs to be settled on a federal basis that would apply to all.

We have seen the beginnings of the dispute between States/Citizens with the aforementioned Texas law and proposed Missouri law. I am pretty sure that Roberts want to declare the Texas law unconstitutional based on standing of the parties and the unusual civil litigation approach designed into the law. That to me is a very plain interpretation of the constitution and the law and would be a subject for the federal courts to decide. I believe there is enough precedent to overturn State laws of this type.

I too am not seeking to engage in the partisan stuff. The court could decide that either way, a national law (either way) could be passed, an amendment would probably fail given the composition of the country at this point in time.

The point is that there is an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution that clearly suggests that this is a federal matter of such magnitude that leaving the subject to States determination is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. I am not necessarily an originalist, as I think it is a bit presumptuous (arrogant) for anyone to think that the founding fathers could possibly think of all scenarios that existed in the future. Frankly, the constitution does not take a lot of time to read, has an amendment process because of that very reason. It is a framework for government, and as evidenced by the first 10 amendments, a place for rights to be established.


There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

2 members like this: WSU Willie, mgh888
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,784
Likes: 922
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,784
Likes: 922
Originally Posted by GMdawg
I would like to ask those of you who read these boards but don't post, and those who read but don't post often to respond. Do you see those who are against abortion making personal attacks against those who are for abortion, or do you see people who are for abortion bashing those personally who are against abortion? I would really like to know.

I've been reading but keeping my schnoz out of the RvW threads. Nothing good comes from discussing the abortion issue in this forum. But it's obvious that the number of posts personally attacking pro life far outnumber those attacking pro abortion. I consider Christianity bashing a personal attack.


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
To hell with the polls, I don't trust republicans any farther than I can throw them. They all want Christian Sharia Law (the capitalist white supremacy version).

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 05/10/22 09:00 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,376
Likes: 438
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,376
Likes: 438
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
To hell with the polls, I don't trust republicans any farther than I can throw them. They all want Christian Sharia Law (the capitalist white supremacy version).

Wow. You're so far out there ain't no coming back to sense for you.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Likes: 906
V
Legend
Offline
Legend
V
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Likes: 906
Originally Posted by GMdawg
I would like to ask those of you who read these boards but don't post, and those who read but don't post often to respond. Do you see those who are against abortion making personal attacks against those who are for abortion, or do you see people who are for abortion bashing those personally who are against abortion? I would really like to know.

Those who favor abortion are the ones who resort to the personal attacks and also include Christians in their mean-spirited attacks. Again, I won't give my views on abortion other than to say I am not an extremist and that I feel it's a private matter for myself and family. I also see a very real correlation w/how the pro-abortion folks act w/the Baker fanatics on another forum. Not all Baker supporters, but there are a handful that do nothing but attack the views of others. We are at a point where they attribute false statements to those they disagree with and if one tries to actually provide proof that he/she did not say such a thing, it turns into an avenue for yet another personal attack. I think these types of attacks that are regular across the forums in this board hurt the board as a whole because the exchanging of ideas is discouraged and a mob mentality rules the day.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,269
Likes: 1330
M
Legend
Online
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,269
Likes: 1330
Originally Posted by GMdawg
I would like to ask those of you who read these boards but don't post, and those who read but don't post often to respond. Do you see those who are against abortion making personal attacks against those who are for abortion, or do you see people who are for abortion bashing those personally who are against abortion? I would really like to know.

I don't fit into any of the posting categories you are asking for, but I will say I am, for the most part, pro-choice. There are exceptions for me but I won't go into it any further than that. To your question, I see exponentially more pro-choice people on here attacking pro-life people. Reading stuff here is a microcosm of what is seen out there in the U.S.

Frankly, it's embarrassing.


Tackles are tackles.
Page 6 of 10 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Draft Overturning Roe vs Wade

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5