What are you talking about, minority rule? The court is to determine the Contitutionalality of a law, not on majority opinion.
"It’s time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution" - Do You Agree?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Well said! Unfortunately too many people choose to view the decision with emotional hysterics rather than logic and facts.
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?
They did no such thing.
Please show me which part of the decision made abortion illegal.
Lol - they sue because they seek to stop discrimination from radical Christian Nationals.
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.
Hopefully, we all know by now that the R v W being overturned is not the same as making abortions illegal. I also hope people will look back and realize why it was and remains important to our rule of order to keep the filibuster in senate.
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?
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
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.
I have 0 respect for anything coming from that group.
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.
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.
Maybe you haven't heard, there is a pill that can help and or stop that.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
As one of the SCOTUS justices says they also need to revisit the ruling ensuring everyone can legally use said pill….
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.
I noticed you never provided a link that was requested to your soccer-mom statement. Always good comedy to see your posts.
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.
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.
It's much worse living in ND or MS and having someone else living in ND or MS decide it for me. Much worse.
Quit parsing words. The opened the door to allow abortion to be made illegal. JFC.
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 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 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.
Your illustration is apropos for your perspective.
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.
Look 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.
However, it still takes 67 to change Senate rules.
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.
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.
For the record it really upset me back in 2013 when Chuck Grassley suggested they not fill the open 3 spots on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He lost all credibility with me at the time.
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.
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.
And it's not the greatest tool, it's simply an easy one to point out abject foolishness.
Latest posts
-
Tim Lester and Jon Budmayr Stop to Watch Jimmy Sullivan Throw- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
Iowa HS Games on Our Radar, Week 7 -- Titus Cram and Bondurant Farrar
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-