What are you talking about, minority rule? The court is to determine the Contitutionalality of a law, not on majority opinion."a tool of minority rule"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are you talking about, minority rule? The court is to determine the Contitutionalality of a law, not on majority opinion."a tool of minority rule"
Well said! Unfortunately too many people choose to view the decision with emotional hysterics rather than logic and facts.It was in their decision. Basically, in my unprofessional opinion, they said the prior ruling was an overreach by the federal government as nothing of note in the constitution gives them the right to make the decision they did at the federal level. They didn’t make it illegal, just stated it was a state issue.
Is that right? Then why does the left sue a baker for not making a gay wedding cake? Why does the left try and groom children of parents who may feel differently? Why does the left give a sh!t about their neighbor?It was 5 rednecks and they took freedom away from every American woman. American society only works when we keep our personal beliefs on how other's should live to ourselves. Abortion is strictly a wedge issue, you could give a shit if your neighbor has an abortion.
They did no such thing.It was 5 rednecks and they took freedom away from every American woman.
Lol - they sue because they seek to stop discrimination from radical Christian Nationals.Is that right? Then why does the left sue a baker for not making a gay wedding cake? Why does the left try and groom children of parents who may feel differently? Why does the left give a sh!t about their neighbor?
It is also a fallacy that making murder illegal will stop murders. There will always be murder. Granted, murder (I am not a person who call abortion a murder) has never been legalized, but the fact that abortions will still occur is not a reason to make it illegal.The fallacy is that abortions will stop if they are made illegal. There will always be abortions, the reason abortions were legalized were due to save lives of young women, which will recur when the ERs begin filling and this cycle of graveyard Republicans die off.
link?Why does the left try and groom children of parents who may feel differently?
People in CA and NY can decide their abortion laws and people in ND and MS can decide their abortion laws.Let the people decide...
How many people in this country support Roe again?
WatchThey did no such thing.
Please show me which part of the decision made abortion illegal.
It all started with Harry Reid ending filibuster for appointing Federal Court Judges. Had that not happened, then we would have more moderate judges at the Federal and SCOTUS level.At this point the Supreme Court is completely a joke. In my mind I started losing respect when the GOP stole the seat from Obama….and now it’s just a caricature of its former self.
I have 0 respect for anything coming from that group.
The Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. It is up to the states and the people to decide….as it should be.Watch
Good for you.. Go get'em champ.At this point the Supreme Court is completely a joke. In my mind I started losing respect when the GOP stole the seat from Obama….and now it’s just a caricature of its former self.
I have 0 respect for anything coming from that group.
Maybe you haven't heard, there is a pill that can help and or stop that.
As one of the SCOTUS justices says they also need to revisit the ruling ensuring everyone can legally use said pill….Maybe you haven't heard, there is a pill that can help and or stop that.
That’s disingenuous. Conservatives were sitting on 300+ Obama appointments, refusing to take any action. The courts were drastically understaffed. This was part of the Mitch McConnell “just say no” plan of attack from the moment Obama was elected.It all started with Harry Reid ending filibuster for appointing Federal Court Judges. Had that not happened, then we would have more moderate judges at the Federal and SCOTUS level.
And what else?As one of the SCOTUS justices says they also need to revisit the ruling ensuring everyone can legally use said pill….
I noticed you never provided a link that was requested to your soccer-mom statement. Always good comedy to see your posts.Good for you.. Go get'em champ.
I have no link, I'm a big girl I can think for myself I don't need a link showing anyone else's opinion.I noticed you never provided a link that was requested to your soccer-mom statement. Always good comedy to see your posts.
Not intended to be combative, but can you link something that references 300+ Obama appointments. With that said, I agree the R's were not willing to consent to the appointees being presented, but I am not willing to call it obstruction the way Obama labeled it. Obama's appointees were politically motivated in the 2nd most powerful circuit court of appeals in the country, that btw had the lowest volume of appeals out of any of the circuit appeals courts. The workload of the courts was not the issue. The issue was Obama was going to take an evenly divided court and make it 7-4.That’s disingenuous. Conservatives were sitting on 300+ Obama appointments, refusing to take any action. The courts were drastically understaffed. This was part of the Mitch McConnell “just say no” plan of attack from the moment Obama was elected.
Some states have stated that they will try to stop that also.Maybe you haven't heard, there is a pill that can help and or stop that.
It's much worse living in ND or MS and having someone else living in ND or MS decide it for me. Much worse.People in CA and NY can decide their abortion laws and people in ND and MS can decide their abortion laws.
Is that worse than the people in CA deciding how the law should be for the people in ND or MS, or vice versa?
Quit parsing words. The opened the door to allow abortion to be made illegal. JFC.The Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. It is up to the states and the people to decide….as it should be.
The Court does not make laws, in case you didn’t know.
Complete bullshit.Not intended to be combative, but can you link something that references 300+ Obama appointments. With that said, I agree the R's were not willing to consent to the appointees being presented, but I am not willing to call it obstruction the way Obama labeled it. Obama's appointees were politically motivated in the 2nd most powerful circuit court of appeals in the country, that btw had the lowest volume of appeals out of any of the circuit appeals courts. The workload of the courts was not the issue. The issue was Obama was going to take an evenly divided court and make it 7-4.
Filibuster at its core is to force compromise. Ending the filibuster was wrong, and in my view, it put in motion a culture within congress that refuses to compromise. If Obama had put forth more moderate appointees, then there would not have been a need for the filibuster. I think it was wrong for the R's to block Garland, but it was in response to the nuclear option put in place by the democrat senators under Harry Reid.
I am personally against the most recent Gun Safety Bill that was signed into law, but I love that it received more than 60 votes in the senate. It is what happens when both parties compromise. Filibuster being returned would lead to more moderate judges being appointed in the Judicial System.
Our Legislative Branch would be an even bigger disaster if they completely remove filibuster, which some senators want to do. We can not let our Senate become a circus, which will happen if they end filibuster.
And when the elected, representative government finds differently than you would prefer, isn't it nice to be able to relocate to a more amenable state government under the same rubric of free travel, free trade, and mutual defense?It's much worse living in ND or MS and having someone else living in ND or MS decide it for me. Much worse.
It's not really nice, but at least inconvenient, for those that can. But suggesting that everyone can do so is ignorant.And when the elected, representative government finds differently than you would prefer, isn't it nice to be able to relocate to a more amenable state government under the same rubric of free travel, free trade, and mutual defense?
It seems to me the worst situation would be one that alternatives don't exist because federal uniformity doesn't permit it.
It's not really nice, but at least inconvenient, for those that can. But suggesting that everyone can do so is ignorant.
I think having actual choices is great. In this case, the there is no real choice for some people.I like our system that fosters choice by the individual.
I'm not sure why you think having choices isn't nice, guess you haven't pondered the alternative to choices.
Inconvenience is measured in degrees.
I've seen some of the most extreme.
I like our system that fosters choice by the individual.
I'm not sure why you think having choices isn't nice, guess you haven't pondered the alternative to choices.
Inconvenience is measured in degrees.
I've seen some of the most extreme.
And poof - he's gone. lolLook at your first 2 sentences. Can you explain how someone that wants an abortion in their state that bans it is a choice?
It used to take 67 Senators to end debate. It was changed to 60 in 1975.Sure. But ultimately I’m talking about the branch and it’s most recent behavior and effectiveness. If a branch of our government can be held hostage by a minority like congress has been, then it’s certainly less legitimate than a branch that allows the majority to make decisions like the SCOTUS.
Humans are unable to control their own reproduction?
So.... abstinence is your solution?Humans are unable to control their own reproduction?
You can find a very even-handed analysis @ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45622.pdf where they slice and dice the numbers every which way.Not intended to be combative, but can you link something that references 300+ Obama appointments. With that said, I agree the R's were not willing to consent to the appointees being presented, but I am not willing to call it obstruction the way Obama labeled it. Obama's appointees were politically motivated in the 2nd most powerful circuit court of appeals in the country, that btw had the lowest volume of appeals out of any of the circuit appeals courts. The workload of the courts was not the issue. The issue was Obama was going to take an evenly divided court and make it 7-4.
Filibuster at its core is to force compromise. Ending the filibuster was wrong, and in my view, it put in motion a culture within congress that refuses to compromise. If Obama had put forth more moderate appointees, then there would not have been a need for the filibuster. I think it was wrong for the R's to block Garland, but it was in response to the nuclear option put in place by the democrat senators under Harry Reid.
I am personally against the most recent Gun Safety Bill that was signed into law, but I love that it received more than 60 votes in the senate. It is what happens when both parties compromise. Filibuster being returned would lead to more moderate judges being appointed in the Judicial System.
Our Legislative Branch would be an even bigger disaster if they completely remove filibuster, which some senators want to do. We can not let our Senate become a circus, which will happen if they end filibuster.
Thanks for replying. I appreciate your objectivity and look forward to reading the link. Again, I was not trying to be combative asking for a link to the 300+. I was looking to better understand.You can find a very even-handed analysis @ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45622.pdf where they slice and dice the numbers every which way.
Two key takeaways:
1) even with the “nuclear option” Obama’s confirmation percentage is one of the lowest in the last 7 presidencies - testament to the obstructionism that you noted, especially during the first and last two years of his time in office.
2) this low confirmation percentage occurred DESPITE Obama’s appointees having the highest overall ABA rating of any of these 7 presidencies - which contradicts your earlier retort about the quality of Obama’s appointments being the reason for conservative’s pushback.
finally, mea culpa on the 300+ appointments being held up at one time. I’m not sure where I came up with that; might have been thinking of his 323 total confirmations (from 444 nominations) or I could be thinking of (and apparently embellishing 😕) the number of nominations that were languishing at the the time when Reid finally pulled the trigger.
Quite frankly, Riley...I don't take serious anyone whose greatest tool in discussion is the LOL emoji. Your response just confirms that you are not to be taken serious.Complete bullshit.
And I don't take seriously anyone who posts bullshit like that. It's already been shown to be woefully misinformed so no need for me to rehash it.Quite frankly, Riley...I don't take serious anyone whose greatest tool in discussion is the LOL emoji. Your response just confirms that you are not to be taken serious.