Supreme court nomination

[airdvr 197]

I agree Wendy.  Abortion cannot be illegal.  Roe v. Wade ensures that.

[wmw999 2,116]

Just now, airdvr said:

I agree Wendy.  Abortion cannot be illegal.  Roe v. Wade ensures that.

And you don't think that she'll vote for every single thing that will limit it? Effectively making it impossible?

I'm no single-issue voter, but I don't want an ideologue of any type on the Supreme Court.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

At this point I would suggest all of her rulings if she truly believes she is fundamentally submissively to her husband. her fundamental belief, and she is welcome to it, appears to be a state where women, wives, are submissive to their husbands. You don't think it warrants to ask what that means for her professionally?

If impacts all of her rulings it should be easy to site just one example of what you are talking about, otherwise you are just chasing windmills.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If impacts all of her rulings it should be easy to site just one example of what you are talking about, otherwise you are just chasing windmills.

Hi Brent,

Ever since I became a thinking man, I have said that I am not a perfect man.

It is not 'site,' it is 'cite.'  It relates to the word citation.

Jerry Baumchen

The best boy speller in the 5th grade

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by JerryBaumchen

[SkyDekker 1,121]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If impacts all of her rulings it should be easy to site just one example of what you are talking about, otherwise you are just chasing windmills.

What evidence would you accept that shows her husband influences her decisions?

[ryoder 1,381]

A new video from CGP Grey, explaining the issues around appointing justices to SCOTUS:

 

[jakee 1,254]

48 minutes ago, airdvr said:

The law doesn't allow a state to deny abortions.  Every state that has tried to restrict abortions has been found unconstitutional.  

Are you joking?

[jakee 1,254]

46 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I agree Wendy.  Abortion cannot be illegal.  Roe v. Wade ensures that.

If the SC simply defers to the states then how will it ensure anything?

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

Ever since I became a thinking man, I have said that I am not a perfect man.

It is not 'site,' it is 'cite.'  It relates to the word citation.

Jerry Baumchen

The best boy speller in the 5th grade

 

I forget about half of the time, at least I didn’t say sight 

[brenthutch 383]

37 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

What evidence would you accept that shows her husband influences her decisions?

Something like “although I agree with the plaintiff and I do believe the law is on her side I am going to have to rule against her because I must defer to my husband, who feels otherwise”

[billvon 2,381]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree Wendy.  Abortion cannot be illegal.  Roe v. Wade ensures that.

Until activist judges revoke that right.

[kallend 1,621]

Time to buy some stock:

https://www.thomasnet.com/products/clothes-hangers-36863603-1.html

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Time to buy some stock:

https://www.thomasnet.com/products/clothes-hangers-36863603-1.html

Canada will be here for your runaway handmaidens. Just like we were here for your Vietnam war resisters.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Time to buy some stock:

https://www.thomasnet.com/products/clothes-hangers-36863603-1.html

Right after the Republicans take away social security and repeal the 19th amendment.  It’s a bugaboo the Ds have been rolling out for years.  Remember this gem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gII8D-lzbA

yes, that is right Biden said that Romney was going to bring back slavery.  
 

Now everyone knows it’s not true except for all of the sheep on the left, like this young women 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoZdnActy0

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by brenthutch

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I forget about half of the time, at least I didn’t say sight 

Hi Brent,

Touche'.  

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree Wendy.  Abortion cannot be illegal.  Roe v. Wade ensures that.

Come on man, the Supreme Court has overturned over 200 of their own decisions. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Time to buy some stock:

https://www.thomasnet.com/products/clothes-hangers-36863603-1.html

Nah, surely the engineers at Dyson or Bissell will save the day.

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Come on man, the Supreme Court has overturned over 200 of their own decisions. 

Over three hundred even.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Over three hundred even.

Sorry. When I graduated we were still in the 2's.

[brenthutch 383]

35 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Sorry. When I graduated we were still in the 2's.

That said, the major reversals of the court have reflected changing societal morays, Plessy v Ferguson being the most obvious.  Roe v Wade, while considered wrongly decided by many constitutional scholars (including RBG), has been woven into the fabric of American society and is unlikely to be reversed.  (Nibbled around the edges perhaps, but not reversed) I would advise against buying clothes hanger stocks; the opinion of BillV and Kallend not withstanding.

Edited October 1, 2020 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,116]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Roe v Wade, while considered wrongly decided by many constitutional scholars (including RBG), has been woven into the fabric of American society and is unlikely to be reversed.  (Nibbled around the edges perhaps, but not reversed) I would advise against buying clothes hanger stocks; the opinion of BillV and Kallend not withstanding.

If you nibble enough of the edges, there isn't much left, and we're very close to where we were in 1972.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,621]

Well, this is interesting.  

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/30/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-website

People of Praise, a tiny charismatic Catholic organization, admits removing all mentions and photos of Trump’s supreme court pick.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That said, the major reversals of the court have reflected changing societal morays, Plessy v Ferguson being the most obvious.  Roe v Wade, while considered wrongly decided by many constitutional scholars (including RBG), has been woven into the fabric of American society and is unlikely to be reversed.  (Nibbled around the edges perhaps, but not reversed) I would advise against buying clothes hanger stocks; the opinion of BillV and Kallend not withstanding.

Would you consider a mandatory $100,000 charge on every firearm sold and a $10,000 charge on each bullet sold at odds with the 2nd Amendment? All still very legal to own and carry around, just a bit more expensive. And maybe only available at 1 store per state, which cannot have more than 100 people living around it in a 500 mile radius and cannot be shipped and have to be picked up in person.

Still legal, still available. Just some zoning and taxation changes. All within the purview of municipal and state legislation.

[brenthutch 383]

7 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Would you consider a mandatory $100,000 charge on every firearm sold and a $10,000 charge on each bullet sold at odds with the 2nd Amendment? All still very legal to own and carry around, just a bit more expensive. And maybe only available at 1 store per state, which cannot have more than 100 people living around it in a 500 mile radius and cannot be shipped and have to be picked up in person.

Still legal, still available. Just some zoning and taxation changes. All within the purview of municipal and state legislation.

That would be called an “infringement” and the 2nd amendment mentions, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  I am unaware of the amendment which states, “the right to murder your unborn child shall not be infringed”*

*a bit hyperbolic, but I hope you get the point

Edited October 1, 2020 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That would be called an “infringement” and the 2nd amendment mentions, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  I am unaware of the amendment which states, “the right to murder your unborn child shall not be infringed”*

*a bit hyperbolic, but I hope you get the point

Then you don't understand Roe v Wade, since that specifically speaks about "undue burden".

Unless fully overturned, the cases regarding abortion will likely be all about that particular standard. Just like the above scenario would lead to a challenge around infringement.

I hope you get the point.