DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

It’s absurd we live in a society that a headline like that could even be written to be questioned as true or not.
But I guess this is the world one side wants. So…

Actually it's not a joke at all. The electoral college system is the law of the land when it comes to presidential elections. It has never been a majority vote by the entire country. Gerrymandering goes on in states controlled by both parties. Both parties appoint SCOTUS judges that in most cases share their views when the opportunity arises to make such appointments. If you think I like the outcome any more than you do you would be wrong.

Now here's where we would certainly agree and even though you won't get many Republican to, it's so blatantly obvious.

There were 11 months left in Obama's presidency when Scalia died. Only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year. Obama quickly named Garland his SCOTUS nomineee and McConnell would never bring him up for hearings.

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett with just 38 days before the general election. The GOP rushed her through and it didn't matter about waiting until the presidential election was over to do so. In essence I would agree that helped stack the court.

donny gets all the press but Mitch will go down in history as one of the biggest political scourges this country has ever suffered. Kentucky owes this country an apology.

You're grossly skewing and oversimplifying the tenants of what is being discussed and asserted, but you know that.

I very much agree. McConnell's strategies on that front were abhorrent. Much of the decline in our recent political dynamic can be pointed to his shrewdly self-interested tactics. Trump is obviously a very effective lightning rod, but McConnell is a core problem. What I don't get is he's 80. So is Pelosi. Why can't they just live out their days instead of trying to screw everything up for people who have to live over the next several decades?

Grossly skewing? Not at all. But you know that. Please continue.

Hey Bible thumpers, why can’t you get behind ACTUAL Bible verses and promote what they say instead of reading between the lines (homosexuality/abortion) to form policy?
Here’s a good place to start…

Deuteronomy 15:1

New International Version
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

New Living Translation
“At the end of every seventh year you must cancel the debts of everyone who owes you money.

English Standard Version
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release.

Berean Study Bible
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

King James Bible
At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.

New King James Version
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts.

New American Standard Bible
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts.

NASB 1995
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.

NASB 1977
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.

Amplified Bible
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release (remission, pardon) from debt.

Christian Standard Bible
“At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

American Standard Version
At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
"And after seven years perform forgiveness.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
Every seven years thou shalt make a release.

Douay-Rheims Bible
In the seventh year thou shalt make a remission,

Good News Translation
"At the end of every seventh year you are to cancel the debts of those who owe you money.

International Standard Version
"You must cancel your debts at the end of every seventh year.

JPS Tanakh 1917
At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.

Literal Standard Version
“At the end of seven years you make a release,

New American Bible
At the end of every seven-year period you shall have a remission of debts,

NET Bible
At the end of every seven years you must declare a cancellation of debts.

New Revised Standard Version
Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts.

New Heart English Bible
At the end of every seven years you shall make a release.

World English Bible
At the end of every seven years you shall make a release.

Young's Literal Translation
'At the end of seven years thou dost make a release,



Should I stop paying my mortgage on religious grounds?

McConnell and Pelosi cancel each other out. It’s a fine line, a balance of power. We use to settle law and policies in congress before trump. Now we force policies and law on the streets in public eye, then let the courts settle it all later.

The New New Testament time line will be thy known as BT-AT.

Just re-read the threads. I've had some very good discussions overall with people, including some who I believe are very intelligent people who are incensed by this topic, who were genuinely willing to have a discussion, and I appreciated that. I'm not taking your bait on this, however.

Good for you. I’m not baiting you. You are free to continue to debate your points about women’s reproductive rights with other men. And I’ll be free to be amused.

j/c

I really hate to go down this path but I feel i must.....

Psalms 137:9 - Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Exodus 12:29 - And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Isaiah 13:16 - Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

2 Kings 15:16 - Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Psalms 135:8 - Who smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and beast.

Acts 7:19 - The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

Psalms 136:10 - To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:

Exodus 1:16 - And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Matthew 2:16-18 - Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (Read More...)

Amos 1:13 - Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:

Hosea 9:11-16 - As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. (Read More...)

Didn't see this posted in this thread.
Saw this on facebook.....

Thank you Rique Sollisch for sharing from this OBGYN. This is the new reality. What are these doctors to do? This is clearly long, but so worthy of your time to read.

Reality based questions from daily medical practice, from South Carolina Dr. Natalie Gregory:
“I am a Fellow of the American College of OBGYN and a graduate of MUSC School of Medicine. I was trained to practice evidence-based medicine. As a Board Certified OBGYN, I am tested with oral and written exams, reviewed by peers, and expected to maintain Continuing Medical Education (CME) in my field of study. I am to use my training to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and obey the laws of our state and our nation while keeping the best interest of the patient as the priority.
I believe the following are not political decisions but rather are private matters between a patient and her physician. Because I have been trained to be prepared for any situation, please consider the following situations and help me to make most appropriate decisions. I have many questions.
1) Ectopic or tubal pregnancy with a fetal heartbeat seen. In this situation, without the possibility of fetal survival, there are 2 options: surgery to remove the pregnancy or medications to stop the growth and thus abort the abnormal gestation. With Senate Bill 1, the standard of care would not be options, however, withholding treatment would be considered malpractice and would be expected to end with hemorrhage, transfusion, loss of fertility or hysterectomy, and possibly death. What should I say to the family? What is the route to obtain permission if she is has internal bleeding and is unstable or unconscious? Can a judge allow it? Is her consent not enough? Will my malpractice insurance company defend me if I disobey the law and remove the tube? What about if I disobey the evidence I have been tested on and the standard of care? Will they continue to insure me? Without malpractice insurance I cannot practice.
2) Molar pregnancy at 9 weeks with fetal heartbeat. This is a genetically abnormal pregnancy with proliferation of placental-type tissue but can be associated with an abnormal fetus, sometimes with a heartbeat. It cannot end with a viable fetus and is genetically abnormal. The standard of care, treatment with a dilation and curettage, would be illegal under Senate Bill 1 and the patient would eventually hemorrhage, require transfusions, lose her uterus and potential for childbearing, and she would die. This is a condition that is curable but not without proper treatment. This bill sets the medical field back decades if not centuries. Do I wait until she hemorrhages, knowing there is no chance of survival of the fetus? Is her life worth less than this pregnancy? Does she not get another chance for a healthy child? Whom shall I contact to obtain approval for this patient’s survival? What if no one answers or the contact is unavailable? I ask because these things happen in the middle of the night.
3) Fetal Anencephaly. This is a condition in which the fetal brain does not form correctly or at all. At times brainstem function can allow a live birth but typically death follows soon after delivery. What do I tell the parents who see the concern on my face when I see the ultrasound? Do I tell them there are no options except waiting for the baby to be born and die? What if she requires a cesarean and suffers complications impairing her fertility? What if she suffers a pulmonary embolism during pregnancy, a known risk? What if she is nearing the end of her reproductive years and wants to try again for a healthy baby but her “clock is running out”? May I offer the standard of care? Is it more humane to end the pregnancy early in the gestation or to experience a neonatal loss? Who gets to make this decision and what are their priorities? Who do I call in the middle of the night? What if she is hemorrhaging and a decision must be made quickly? I take call shifts of 24 hours and my partners and I always have a physician available for our patients. Will there be someone is the legislature available like I am, at any time of day or night? What about Christmas morning? Will there be a hotline or a pager system?
4) Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. When this occurs prior to viability or around 23 weeks, the standard of care is to deliver with surgery or induction of labor. Both would be illegal under Senate Bill 1. The alternative is to manage expectantly, the fancy way of saying we let nature take its course. If some fluid reaccumulates, then there is the possibility of staying pregnant long enough for development to continue to viability. If the fluid continues to leak, the fetal lungs will not develop and there is no chance of survival after birth. More likely, an infection will develop that can rapidly spread into the maternal circulation. Treatment with antibiotics is insufficient without delivery as there is poor penetration across the placental barrier. Without delivery, mothers can die of systemic infection. Delivery, however, risks my career. Do I offer delivery, which is the standard of care? What if the fetus still has a heartbeat but the mother is unable to consent? Is the fetal life more precious than maternal life? Do I wait until her blood pressure drops and she can’t respond to me? Whom shall I call to get approval? What are the patient’s rights concerning the confidentiality of her situation? Does HIPAA apply?
5) Cervical cancer diagnosed in a woman with a pre-viable pregnancy. Termination with subsequent treatment of the cancer with surgical removal, chemotherapy and/or radiation provides the best chance of maternal survival. Morbidity and mortality are increased without immediate treatment. Should I tell her she has a better chance of survival if she moved to another state where evidence-based medical decisions are possible? What if she has other children and she is the primary care provider? What is the process for her to secure childcare if she is unable to care for the children while she undergoes palliative therapy? Can her family weigh in on their desire for their loved one to be valued for more than her womb? Who do I call if she has legal questions? Will there be a hotline?
6) Pregnancies that are the result of rape and/or incest. This bill requires the woman to file a police report and allows the hospital to violate HIPAA laws and file a report for her. Her options would be to carry the pregnancy or file a report. What if filing a report means her ex would get arrested and she needs his child support for the other children? What if filing a report means getting taken from your home and placed in foster care at age 17? Many women choose not to file reports and I do not know their reasons. It does not concern me caring for their medical needs. Again, who is on this rape and incest approval committee and how do I reach them 24/7?
I ask that you help guide me to provide the care that you would want for yourself or your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter. Please remember that pregnancy, for women, is a risky endeavor. We risk our lives for this. Respect us enough to know how to navigate our healthcare decisions with our doctors and families. And respect me and my profession enough to allow us to care for our patients without having our hands tied by these laws.”
Sincerely,
Natalie Gregory, MD, FACOG
Mount Pleasant, SC

Pregnant Woman Cited for HOV Violation Says Her Unborn Baby Should Count as Second Person



A pregnant Plano woman who got a ticket for driving alone in an HOV lane plans to fight the citation, arguing her unborn baby should count as a second person.

The woman, Brandy Bottone, was driving down Central Expressway approaching the exit for I-635 when she was stopped at a sheriff’s checkpoint targeting HOV drivers breaking the rules. By law, in order to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, drivers must have at least one passenger in the vehicle.

"He starts peeking around. He's like, 'Is it just you?' And I said, 'No there's two of us?'” Bottone said. “And he said, 'Well where's the other person.' And I went, 'right here,'” pointing to her stomach.

At the time of the incident last month, she was 34 weeks pregnant.

But the officer told her that doesn't count.

"And then I said, 'Well (I'm) not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on (with Roe v. Wade), this counts as a baby,’” she said.

Though Texas penal code recognizes an unborn child as a person, the state's transportation code doesn’t.

Bottone got a $275 ticket. She said she plans to fight the ticket in court.

Bottone first told her story to the Dallas Morning News.

Legal experts say it's an interesting discussion -- especially considering the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights.

"Different judges might treat this differently. This is unchartered territory we're in now,” said Dallas appellate lawyer Chad Ruback. "There is no Texas statute that says what to do in this situation. The Texas Transportation Code has not been amended recently to address this particular situation. Who knows? Maybe the legislature will in the next session."

Bottone said laws should be consistent in how they define a person.

"I really don't think it's right because one law is saying it one way but another law is saying it another way,” she said.

Bottone’s court date is July 20 – about the same time as her due date.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/p...y-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/

In 2013 Harry Reid changed the rules for federal judicial appointments. They had previously required 60 votes to approve federal judges. He wanted to get a bunch of Obama appointees thru so he eliminated the 60 vote requirement. At the time McConnell said he would someday regret doing that. McConnell did the same thing for the Supreme Court appointees. He is too much of a senate traditionalist to have ever done that had Reid not eliminated the 60 vote requirement first.

That led to President Trump being able to get three justices approved by majority vote. Reid was a dirtbag but he was your dirtbag so you were fine with the change then. It has since bitten you in the ass. But you brought in on yourselves so you lefties need to quit whining about McConnell and the court.

Can you explain why McConnell said that with 11 months in office that it was too late in Obama's term to appoint a SCOTUS judge but he rushed one through when Trump had less than two months in office?

Because there was no way the nominee would have ever cleared committee. It would not have happened. There were not enough votes for it. And he is politician, so what he says and what the reality are very rarely match, that's what they do.

So in that case the appointment was politically rigged by McConnell. He blocked hearings on an Obama SCOTUS nominee claiming it was too close to the election to conduct hearings on the nomination and then pushed those hearings forward for a trump nomination with trump having far less time in office before the election. Can you just call something what it is for once?

I had to go back and reread what I posted. I could not remember posting anything about the garland situation. I didn’t you just chose to ignore what I posted about. I do understand why though.

That was six or so years ago and I do not remember much detail. I do remember reading that the identical situation had occurred other times and been handled similarly. I do not remember who it was or when and I do not care enough to research it.

You want it called what it is? It is politics and it happens all the time in that town. And news flash!! If the dems had the senate in 20 , Schumer would have made sure Amy coney Barrett’s nomination would not have seen the light of day. And you know that.

So you're trying to project what might have happened rather than address what did happen. I will say I'm not surprised.

I did address it . If you want more details look it up. I really don’t care about it.

And why don’t you give me a good laugh and tell me you don’t think Schumer would have done the same thing. With astraight face.

Every SCOTUS nomination is politically rigged. It is a rare nomination that a conservative nominates a liberal or vice versa. This is a surprise to you?

To be fair everyone knew SHE would get to do the next nomination. Not many gave Trump a chance to win.

"Elections have consequences... I won" - Obama

I'm also not surprised to hear you don't care about it. A lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS manipulated by a Republican leader of the senate. There you go with the "think" and "would have" again. I have looked it up. You're the one making a claim based with no sources or anything to back it up. If you actually wish to address this, please do so with something other than *I think I remember*.

Try this on for size and get back to me.....

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...ry-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/

And you were stamping your feet and crying foul when Reid politically manipulated the judiciary?

But hey, you got your fight for Sunday. I bet you have your warm feelz now.

Yet that was something I didn't mention about McConnell rigging the SCOTUS by obstruction. I never complained about any Trump nominee being appointed by a simple majority. Reid actually passed something that has favored the GOP as time went on. And now you're trying to make it an issue? Oh, that's rich.

In fact, just a few days ago I pointed out to OCD who proposed Biden make increase the amount of justices in the SCOTUS and doing away with the filibuster that if you do that you must realize that you just gave the other side the right to do the same thing.

Try again grasshopper.

Yet again you misrepresent what I said.

Do you do that on purpose just so you can have an attack surface?

Reid used the "nuclear" option to get done what he wanted done, namely push nominations through without having the filibuster in the way. It was revised and used later for SCOTUS nominations. When calling out the policial BS you don't seem to want to call out that. You bill yourself as calling out political BS on both sides, but really what you mean is GOP sucks.. derp trumpian trumpian trumpian.


Your reasoning for not wanting Biden to expand the court is "the other side will do it too" not "isn't the right thing to do for America and the republic"

You are no mentor, I am not your grasshopper. Drop the arrogant nonsense.

Both sides gained an advantage by not needing 60 votes be required for a SCOTUS judge to be appointed. If you were being honest you know that we would never be able to fill nine positions of the SCOTUS justices if that 60 vote requirement were still in place in today's political climate.

I responded to OCD in the context of which is post was intended. That was using these measures purely for an advantage to get what he wanted politically. I simply explained how that line of thinking would backfire.

The number of justices has changed six times. I guess in all six of such instances you must feel it was done against the best interest of the of America and the Republic. Try again *insert title of your own choosing*.

Not needing 60 votes is a political advantage. It was done by Reid, you don't really want to admit it was democrats that started an escalation it seems. Before the escalation both sides needed to work towards a compromise, that is gone. Reid decided that for America. The seats would get filled, but they get filled by compromising.

"The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869." I can't really say what happened when it happened. These days the only reason anyone wants to change the number is to get a political advantage. That is not good for the Republic.

And take your petty childish games and name calling and keep them to yourself.

Not long ago they were killing children up to and including their birthdays. Some Democrat States still are.

We were shut down and couldn't even speak of limits on this Barbarism.

Now the tide has turned and compromise is in the works.

Here in Virginia they are talking rape, incest and life of the mother along with a 15 week allowance for abortion as this is when the child begins to feel pain.

Compassion and Common Sense is taking shape.

Just to play devil's advocate.

How do people feel about a loved one on life support and pulling the plug?

25 years of nursing has taught me there are things worse than death. For many patients ‘pulling the plug’ can be the greatest act of love a family could provide.

I live in a ‘right to die’ state. I’ve been present when patients have taken their medications for ‘assisted suicide’. Each time it was a personal choice for the patient, and one I fully supported and understood.
We shouldn’t be held prisoner in our failing bodies. We have the means to gracefully bow out. I’m all for choices.

Both of us having living wills with statements about quality of life and viability. We also have POA to allow the other to make those choices if the time comes.

Some choices need to be made earlier than later.

I don't feel the two situations are really comparable. The one that's having the plug pulled has the opportunity to have some sort of say in one situation, can't in the other. Diving into the why's quickly takes us to into the same conversations, but my point is I don't think the 2 conversations are all that similar when you get down to it.

So you're saying it wasn't Reid who revised it to be used on SCOTUS nominees but you're blaming Reid for it anyway. Got it.

Stop trying to rewrite history here. Here's what McConnell said when senate Democrats did that in 2013.....


Now what did the Republicans do in 2017? THEY are the party that "revised it" to include the SCOTUS. Odd how you try to manipulate the facts to blame Harry Reid for the actions of McConnell. So much for that personal responsibility mantra.

The problem with the 60 vote threshold is that it allows partisan games.

I don't mind the filibuster, but the way that is implemented, with those offering the filibuster not being accountable for its use, is not workable.

Right now, if there is a filibuster, you have to organize the 60 votes to break it. It should be the other way around. If you don't have the 40 votes to hold, then nothing happens.

The days gone by of the standing filibuster are something that should be revisited.

So you're saying it wasn't Reid who revised it to be used on SCOTUS nominees but you're blaming Reid for it anyway. Got it.

Stop trying to rewrite history here. Here's what McConnell said when senate Democrats did that in 2013.....


Now what did the Republicans do in 2017? THEY are the party that "revised it" to include the SCOTUS. Odd how you try to manipulate the facts to blame Harry Reid for the actions of McConnell. So much for that personal responsibility mantra.[/quote

I see you need people to be pedanticly precise or you will find a way to move the goal posts. You have already done so 5 times in this discussion.

I never said Reid revised it to be used for SCOTUS nominations. You have, yet again, tried to take what I said and bend it to your need to fight. You cannot argue things I did not say ad act like you got something right.

It was a power grab when one party did it, it was a power grab when the other party responded in kind. You seem to miss it was Reid that started the power grab. You do not wish to acknowledge that. So much for your self proclaimed press of calling out BS on both sides.

And in case you missed it in your rush to find yet something else to fight about by moving goal posts I did say it should never have changed, it was a power grab, it was wrong. I also mentioned how it killed compromise.

Now go shout at the sky about how the clouds mock you.

You are hilarious.
It was you who called out Reid while failing to mention McConnell. Not me. Who refused to call out both sides again?

There's big difference between precise and obtuse.

Agreed.
Put on that Depends, carry some lozenges, and wear some comfortable shoes. That's the right way to do things.

Completely unrelated question, just based on the name. You're not KFrankB on Twitter are you?

but it is, and you just made the argument for pro-choice.

the thing here is consciousness. what does it mean to be conscious, and what it doesn't. if someone had a will written that says to pull the plug at a certain time, or sign a POA for someone else to make those decisions based on the fact that they are unable to make said decisions, it still ultimately ends with a choice. this is why a lot of pro-life people tend to be against assisted-suicide as well, trying to dictate the medical decisions of someone else from the first stages of life to the end.

when it was never their decision to make.

is a fetus conscious?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

not until between the 24th-28th week. so i can easily make the argument that life begins at a state of consciousness, which means a woman should have full autonomy over her own body up to week 24, when a fetus starts becoming an actual conscious human being.