Next Supreme Court Justice
Quote: RonCThe Democrats/Liberals are wasting a lot of time and energy worrying about the Kavanaugh confirmation, which will happen absent someone discovering disqualifying information, and ignoring the obvious opportunity to codify Roe v. Wade into state laws in as many states as possible. Governor Cuomo is talking about "suing the Supreme Court" if they overturn Roe v. Wade. On the face of it, I don't really think that is possible...and his own state still has laws on the books that pro-abortion folks may not like (the process required for abortions past 24 weeks). Roe v. Wade being overturned does not end abortion; it would end the so-called "right" to abortion.
"Suing the Supreme Court?" Did he really say that?
If he did, it shows how off the rails the left has become.
Quote: AZDuffman"Suing the Supreme Court?" Did he really say that?
If he did, it shows how off the rails the left has become.
To be fair, he said that he would sue should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court. Who the heck do you sue when the Supreme Court rules on a case?
There are methods to overrule the Supreme Court--an amendment to the Constitution or laws that have less chance of being ruled unconstitutional by the Court.
No doubt the three left-leaning west coast states will continue to allow it; heck if the legislators in Nevada allow it mama, traveling from a state that does not allow abortion, could gamble, dine, see a show and get an abortion during her next trip to Las Vegas.
Quote: RonCTo be fair, he said that he would sue should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court. Who the heck do you sue when the Supreme Court rules on a case?
There are methods to overrule the Supreme Court--an amendment to the Constitution or laws that have less chance of being ruled unconstitutional by the Court.
These liberal pols saying stuff like this, it is like when the Allen Glick was told by the Outfit to praise Frank Rosenthal in public. Someone should tell him that it being overturned would be the result of a lawsuit.
Quote: aceofspadesAll overturning Roe v Wade would do is make it that abortion is not a Constitutional right - it would not outlaw abortion
Actually it is a really BIG DEAL what is and isn't constitutional right. Might as well put some others to the states as well if you don't think it is a big deal.
Quote: rxwineActually it is a really BIG DEAL what is and isn't constitutional right. Might as well put some others to the states as well if you don't think it is a big deal.
Fine by me
Unhinged much? The implication seems to be that he would want to go back to some awful past policies...like slavery.
Really?
She is a longs hot, right now at +6600, to become President...but she seems to be considering another run at it...
https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures
Quote: RonCPotential 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate is saying that she is now concerned that President Trump may be trying us back to the 1850's, not just the 1950's, with this nominee.
Unhinged much? The implication seems to be that he would want to go back to some awful past policies...like slavery.
Really?
They are going to keep one-upping each other with how bad they think things will be. They act as if SCOTUS is a Star Chamber that passes it's own laws.
How long until some lib female says it will lead to women being declared "property" again?
Quote: AZDuffmanThey are going to keep one-upping each other with how bad they think things will be. They act as if SCOTUS is a Star Chamber that passes it's own laws.
It is a body that has made bad decisions along the way, some of which rob citizens of their rights. They have the impact of laws until they are changed by law, amendment, or being overturned. This one, while not as famous as Dred Scott, directly impacted the craziness of civil forfeitures:
"“An owner's interest in property may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use,” wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist. By rejecting Bennis’ “innocent owner” defense, the Supreme Court kicked the door open to even greater asset forfeiture abuse."
Ruling in Bennis v. Michigan
Quote: AZDuffmanHow long until some lib female says it will lead to women being declared "property" again?
I take more from that statement than that. I think she is trying to imply a racist (in addition to the anti-feminist implications of her statement) tinge will be added to the Court.
Maybe she should get a Purple Heart for being severely wounded in the email investigation...
Quote: MrVI suspect it would then be up to the states to determine whether to allow / regulate abortions.
No doubt the three left-leaning west coast states will continue to allow it; heck if the legislators in Nevada allow it mama, traveling from a state that does not allow abortion, could gamble, dine, see a show and get an abortion during her next trip to Las Vegas.
And smoke weed!
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd a nonzero amount of liberal men. What exactly is the point?
Point is, why do you think more women tend to be Liberal than they do Conservative?
I wonder if it's the greater tendency of one side to spout off platitudes such as, "A woman's place is in the home," if not to have sects of a certain Religion we all know and love outright forbid women from working, unless their husbands are cool with it, of course. Maybe it's the greater tendency of one side as opposed to the other to think they should be allowed to tell women what to do with their own bodies which, by the way, hardly begins and ends with abortion.
I'm just asking you what side do these views correlate more to?
Quote:
And the sad part is such women keep going back to the guy for years. Keep refusing to press charges.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
As if all of them are in a position to do that?
Okay, so you're married to some, "Woman's place is in the home," fundamentalist extreme Christian, and you have four kids with the guy. So, what happens is that the demands placed upon you by the church are such that you never sought out a job, much less higher education. You have no idea who will take care of you if you leave the guy, who is also threatening to make it so that you never see the kids again if you do, whereas you're the one who cares the most about the welfare of the kids.
What do you do? As far as you can tell, staying with him for the kids would be the best thing, and from your perspective, he's right...what can you really offer the kids without him with only a limited earning capacity?
Alternatively, you can be on the side that, from the beginning, says you have the right to do whatever you think will make you happiest in life.
Quote:....and his woman
Case in point. Thanks.
Quote: rxwineActually it is a really BIG DEAL what is and isn't constitutional right. Might as well put some others to the states as well if you don't think it is a big deal.
Honestly, there's a fair Constitutional Rights question to be asked about whether or not it should have been put to the states to begin with.
If you want to know the truth, I think we might actually be less polarized on the national level if more was left up to the states. I'm not sure what the other effects of such a thing would be, and a good many of them would certainly be negative, but that would be one of the positive ones.
Quote: Mission146Point is, why do you think more women tend to be Liberal than they do Conservative? ....
53% of white women disobeyed Mother Hillary and voted for Trump.
The fact of the matter is liberal or conservative usually comes down to race. Most white people are Republicans, most minority’s are Democrats. I don’t think gender matters too much.
Quote: Sandybestdog53% of white women disobeyed Mother Hillary and voted for Trump.
The fact of the matter is liberal or conservative usually comes down to race. Most white people are Republicans, most minority’s are Democrats. I don’t think gender matters too much.
Like I said, I don’t make the news, I just report it.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
The next one, for 2016:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/
Says 54% of white voters lean to the GOP.
The next chart after that says white women lean Republican 47-46, so it looks like race is not a key factor when it comes to the political leanings of white women. To wit, they’re the most evenly split group.
When you throw all of the minority women in there, you end up with well over 50% of women leaning Democrat, which is my original point.
CNN has it at 52% white women for Trump:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president
But, that’s splitting hairs.
My guess is three-fold:
1. Because Hillary sucks.
2. Because Hillary was the political equivalent of an overplayed pop song for nearly two years.
3. Because Hillary took a few key states with economically disadvantaged white voters (many of whom were women, a few of whom would generally lean Democrat) for granted.
Anyway, as compared to party identification, a large share of white women certainly did vote for Trump, but my original point is that most women tend to lean Democrat...which is true.
I think gender matters to the extent that if you had the same percentages of white women lean GOP as is true with men, then the Democrats would no longer have a majority of the women, overall.
Quote: Mission146Honestly, there's a fair Constitutional Rights question to be asked about whether or not it should have been put to the states to begin with.
If you want to know the truth, I think we might actually be less polarized on the national level if more was left up to the states. I'm not sure what the other effects of such a thing would be, and a good many of them would certainly be negative, but that would be one of the positive ones.
If a fetus has rights, aren't those rights the same in every jurisdiction?
Quote: billryanIf a fetus has rights, aren't those rights the same in every jurisdiction?
I’m pro-choice, so you’re barking up the wrong umbilical cord with that question.
I don’t even care about the moral question, if you want to know the truth. I’m more concerned with the practical effect. If some states have legalized abortion and others don’t, then a woman who wants one and lives in a state that doesn’t can simply live/drive to a state that does to get it.
I just think that much of the political frustration and divisiveness in this country stems from the fact that there’s so much riding on Federal Law. Contrastly, if you could leave some of these big questions up to the states, (though I do see why the Feds need to take a stance on gay marriage, or at least, recognizing civil unions) then anyone who doesn’t like the law in one state can just move to another.
Like to gamble? Don’t live in the middle of Utah.
Want to smoke weed? Live in one of those states.
Income & Personal Property Taxes...
There are other examples, but I’m not going to list them all. Let’s just say they are varied and can get a bit odd, though.
Which serves to prove that if a person wants to enjoy many of the effects of LSD, but does not actually want to take an illegal drug, all that person need do is attend church long enough.
Quote: Mission146Point is, why do you think more women tend to be Liberal than they do Conservative?
I wonder if it's the greater tendency of one side to spout off platitudes such as, "A woman's place is in the home," if not to have sects of a certain Religion we all know and love outright forbid women from working, unless their husbands are cool with it, of course. Maybe it's the greater tendency of one side as opposed to the other to think they should be allowed to tell women what to do with their own bodies which, by the way, hardly begins and ends with abortion.
I think you are divorced from reality. I think more tend to be liberal because more use government aid, as do so many single mothers for example. I don't hear any conservatives spouting the platitudes you say.
Women more than men want to be liked. Liberalism is easy there, just offer more government programs and say you are for all the right things. Conservatism is more for grown-ups. Conservative have to say "no" to many things, same as you do to children who want candy every trip to the check-out lane.
Quote:Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
As if all of them are in a position to do that?
Okay, so you're married to some, "Woman's place is in the home," fundamentalist extreme Christian, and you have four kids with the guy. So, what happens is that the demands placed upon you by the church are such that you never sought out a job, much less higher education. You have no idea who will take care of you if you leave the guy, who is also threatening to make it so that you never see the kids again if you do, whereas you're the one who cares the most about the welfare of the kids.
What do you do? As far as you can tell, staying with him for the kids would be the best thing, and from your perspective, he's right...what can you really offer the kids without him with only a limited earning capacity?
Alternatively, you can be on the side that, from the beginning, says you have the right to do whatever you think will make you happiest in life.
You are again divorced from reality. What on earth does "fundamentalist extreme Christian" have to do with things? I'd say it is more likely the woman liked the "bad boy" and ignored the kid who went to church of any kind. He slapped her a little here and there when they were dating. The kid who went to church and others told her to dump him. She ignored the advice of everyone. She might have even let herself get pregnant hoping the guy would settle once he had a kid.
Meanwhile, she took easy classes in school and never learned a skill, because her man would take care of her. Maybe they had moved in and the cops came once or twice, and she said "don't take him away!" She ends up in a trap of her own making. Had she had some self-respect and self-esteem she would have dumped him early on. But he was the "bad boy" she hoped to tame.
I am pretty much done here as you are wanting to turn a SCOTUS thread into a pro-gay and anti-christian thread. I am confused as to why you think any ill has to be related to a Christian this or a Christian that. But I am not going to keep going down the road.
Not when the left is declaring that the prime factor is the desire of the mother.Quote: billryanIf a fetus has rights, aren't those rights the same in every jurisdiction?
Quote: billryanAll well and good but what happens when the fetus wants to live in a state where abortion is prohibited but his mother disagrees.
I don’t know, but there’s a table in the room with me right now. I think I’ll ask this table whether or not it likes being in this state.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think you are divorced from reality. I think more tend to be liberal because more use government aid, as do so many single mothers for example. I don't hear any conservatives spouting the platitudes you say.
Yeah, those college-educated women tend to be on Federal Aid a pretty good bit. Especially in all of those states with those high-skilled jobs and high median incomes.
Clearly you don’t see all of those Republican women in states like West Virginia need that sort of financial support.
In any event, you bring up single mothers constantly. How can you be pro-life, but have such a problem with single mothers? Pick one.
Or, states like Kentucky, who voted for a Governor who said he was going to try to cut Medicaid, did in fact cut it, and then had all the Republican women up in arms because their candidate did exactly what he said he would. I guess that’s what happens when the voters can’t understand the implications of words that contain more than five letters.
Quote:Women more than men want to be liked. Liberalism is easy there, just offer more government programs and say you are for all the right things. Conservatism is more for grown-ups. Conservative have to say "no" to many things, same as you do to children who want candy every trip to the check-out lane.
Liberalism has to say, “No,” to many things, also. We have to say, “No,” to things like racism, sexism and sexual-preference based discrimination. It’s tough. It makes a lot of white guys not like us, according to the numbers, ESPECIALLY white guys who are religious and not particularly well-educated.
That’s right! Your average Democrat is overwhelmingly better educated, even though we have such a high percentage of those welfare-subsidized single mothers and minorities that Conservatives can’t stand...according to Conservatives.
In fact, white non-college educated men prefer the GOP almost 2:1.
Conservatives have three-quarters of White Non-Hispanic Evangelical Protestants, isn’t that fun?
So, if we want to make generalizations, a generalization that is actually slightly more accurate is that a Conservative is more likely than a liberal to be a bigoted, white, religious, male idiot.
Quote:You are again divorced from reality. What on earth does "fundamentalist extreme Christian" have to do with things? I'd say it is more likely the woman liked the "bad boy" and ignored the kid who went to church of any kind. He slapped her a little here and there when they were dating. The kid who went to church and others told her to dump him. She ignored the advice of everyone. She might have even let herself get pregnant hoping the guy would settle once he had a kid.
What does it have to do with anything? Look at the demographics of your own political party and what some of the Christianity offshoots are actually in there preaching.
Quote:Meanwhile, she took easy classes in school and never learned a skill, because her man would take care of her. Maybe they had moved in and the cops came once or twice, and she said "don't take him away!" She ends up in a trap of her own making. Had she had some self-respect and self-esteem she would have dumped him early on. But he was the "bad boy" she hoped to tame.
Maybe because they both came from a church that taught them it’s the man’s job to take care of earning and the woman’s to deal with the house and kids?
You’re the one bemoaning the breakdown of the traditional American family environment, not me. I’ve never heard an Athiest tell someone divorce is a sin.
#MyMoneyMyChoice
Quote: RSHere's an interesting take on it I heard before....one big reason why people support the right to have an abortion is due to finances. If someone is struggling financially, it may not make sense to bring a child into this world (their words).
I agree. Further, if welfare and Medicaid are going to exist, then it might not make sense on a societal level to force that woman to give birth to a child she doesn’t want.
Quote:Why does the woman get the sole choice in this decision, if there's a man involved as well? Should the man be able to walk away from the situation and not be forced to pay child support?
I think so, as long as he makes the decision before the baby is born by signing something that states he was in favor of an abortion and she didn’t want it. He loses all parental rights for all time, of course.
In terms of the baby actually being born, the simple answer is because it’s in her body, of course.
That actually brings up another interesting question: What if he wants the baby, but she doesn’t? There are prenatal paternity tests, so we can be sure as to parenthood, so I guess the first thing he would have to do is prove it’s his.
That’s where things get interesting. Assuming she wants an abortion, he doesn’t, should he have enough rights as a parent to demand that she carry to term, even though there are drawbacks (for her) to that as opposed to abortion? After she gives birth, same as I said above, the father would have full responsibility and she’s off the hook.
Damn, that’s a tough one. I’ll have to chew on that one for awhile.
Quote: Mission146I agree. Further, if welfare and Medicaid are going to exist, then it might not make sense on a societal level to force that woman to give birth to a child she doesn’t want.
I think so, as long as he makes the decision before the baby is born by signing something that states he was in favor of an abortion and she didn’t want it. He loses all parental rights for all time, of course.
I agree....well, at least from a devil's advocate point of view. But do you think the left would actually support this and mix it in with the abortion laws and whatnot? I don't think so.
Quote: Mission146In terms of the baby actually being born, the simple answer is because it’s in her body, of course.
That isn't the argument though. The argument is due to finances. Yes, there are other arguments, like health reasons, rape, "her body", etc. but I'm not talking about those. If you immediately jump to one of those reasons when discussing the financial argument, then that means the financial argument holds no water.
Quote: Mission146That actually brings up another interesting question: What if he wants the baby, but she doesn’t? There are prenatal paternity tests, so we can be sure as to parenthood, so I guess the first thing he would have to do is prove it’s his.
That’s where things get interesting. Assuming she wants an abortion, he doesn’t, should he have enough rights as a parent to demand that she carry to term, even though there are drawbacks (for her) to that as opposed to abortion? After she gives birth, same as I said above, the father would have full responsibility and she’s off the hook.
Damn, that’s a tough one. I’ll have to chew on that one for awhile.
That's the other side of the coin, which I was countering with the idea I brought up. Right now, if she wants to have the baby, then he's on the hook for child support and he can't get out of it. If he wants to have the baby, shouldn't he have a say in the matter? You can't just say, "The women get all the rights, the men don't get sh** for rights" and expect any kind of equality or fairness in that scenario.
Quote: billryanSo a deadbeat dad can claim he wanted an abortion and that relieves him of a lifetime of responsibility? You might want to rethink that idea.
Sure, why not? If a woman can do it, why can't the man? Unless you're suggesting only a woman should be able to relieve herself from a lifetime of responsibility but a man can't.
Quote: billryanSo a deadbeat dad can claim he wanted an abortion and that relieves him of a lifetime of responsibility? You might want to rethink that idea.
That’s not what I said.
He would first have to prove that he is, in fact, the dad. At that point, he’d have to sign a document abdicating all parental rights to the child prior to the child being born. This document would be a formal document that would need to be submitted in court.
Parents already have the option to voluntarily terminate their rights as it is, it’s called adoption.
More than that, fathers already have an out, at least temporarily, which is to simply not claim paternity.
Quote: dogqckSo then my taxes willgo to WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc for Mom and baby and Daddy just knocks up another. Wait a minute, never mind. That already happens now. My error.
How much do you pay in federal tax per year? Also, how much do you think you pay to those programs out of those taxes?
Quote: RSI agree....well, at least from a devil's advocate point of view. But do you think the left would actually support this and mix it in with the abortion laws and whatnot? I don't think so.
I don’t know if they would or not. If I’m honest, probably not. I don’t see how it’s not consistent with equal rights, or as close to equal as possible, though.
Either way, I think a man can do it now, it’s just much more complicated.
The first thing he would have to do is not claim paternity, that’s the easy part.
The next thing that she would have to do would be to sue him for child support by which he would be compelled to appear in court and submit to a paternity test.
However, if he already lived in a different state and had no plans to ever go to the previous state, then he could simply not show up for court. He might be charged and convicted with Failure to Appear in absentia (which he has also not appeared for) but that would not be a Federal crime, it’d be a state-level crime. That would mean it’s possible (maybe probable) that the state would not want to have the person extradited back to them, which assumes they get caught for anything in the first place.
Quote:That isn't the argument though. The argument is due to finances. Yes, there are other arguments, like health reasons, rape, "her body", etc. but I'm not talking about those. If you immediately jump to one of those reasons when discussing the financial argument, then that means the financial argument holds no water.
I tend to ramble, sometimes. I think the financial argument holds water, I just meant that women and men can’t truly have equal rights in this regard due to the practical concern of the baby being in her body. In my mind, I had kind of already jumped ahead to, “What if the guy wanted it, but she didn’t,” when I wrote that.
Quote:That's the other side of the coin, which I was countering with the idea I brought up. Right now, if she wants to have the baby, then he's on the hook for child support and he can't get out of it. If he wants to have the baby, shouldn't he have a say in the matter? You can't just say, "The women get all the rights, the men don't get sh** for rights" and expect any kind of equality or fairness in that scenario.
I agree with you in principle 100%, the question is just one of implementation. Also, do his rights to the child exceed her right not to carry the thing around for several months and push it or have it cut out of her body?
Quote: dogqckSo then my taxes willgo to WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc for Mom and baby and Daddy just knocks up another. Wait a minute, never mind. That already happens now. My error.
Yup, so I’m guessing you’re in favor of abortion if she wants an abortion, right?
Quote: dogqckWhy the hell would you think that ? I just think the dad should be paying child support if it's his kid. I have a younger brother who skipped on 3 kids, 3 different Moms. moved to Florida. Bragged to me once that he only had another year and statue of limitations were up and he could go home. That was last time I talked to him. He died recently. His legacy is a beautiful daughter who is glad he's dead. I had heard every excuse from she will just spend the money on drugs to her new husband is loaded. Hey, it's your kid asshole. If you really think she's using drugs, call social services, fight for custody, etc. DEAD beat dads, drop dead!
I just figured you’re worried about where your taxes are going, so you’d be pro-choice, abortion being the cheaper option...even if tax money were paying for it. (It doesn’t)
Anyway, I know what you mean, but dead beat dads and single moms aren’t the only ones availing themselves of social safety nets.
Quote: Mission146Honestly, there's a fair Constitutional Rights question to be asked about whether or not it should have been put to the states to begin with.
If you want to know the truth, I think we might actually be less polarized on the national level if more was left up to the states. I'm not sure what the other effects of such a thing would be, and a good many of them would certainly be negative, but that would be one of the positive ones.
For women with means, well off, that's not a big deal, in fact, they may even pay for their own care. For women without means, possibly depending on a city bus to even go to work, only having abortion available in some other state that allows it, is another big deal.
I don't have a problem with your idea in general, but in this case I think I do, and pretty sure pro-choice advocates have the same problem with that suggestion as they've likely heard it before.
And they've already managed to cut access in several ways already even within states.
Quote: RSThat's the other side of the coin, which I was countering with the idea I brought up. Right now, if she wants to have the baby, then he's on the hook for child support and he can't get out of it. If he wants to have the baby, shouldn't he have a say in the matter? You can't just say, "The women get all the rights, the men don't get sh** for rights" and expect any kind of equality or fairness in that scenario.
To, actually make it a fair process we need to put a 8 to 10 pound object in your belly for 9 months. Then on the appropriate day you'll have to sit on the toilet and crap it out completely whole. It will do a giant number on your rectum but that can be sewn back up and we can pump you full of antibiotics.
Quote: rxwineFor women with means, well off, that's not a big deal, in fact, they may even pay for their own care. For women without means, possibly depending on a city bus to even go to work, only having abortion available in some other state that allows it, is another big deal.
I don't have a problem with your idea in general, but in this case I think I do, and pretty sure pro-choice advocates have the same problem with that suggestion as they've likely heard it before.
And they've already managed to cut access in several ways already even within states.
I don’t disagree with your point, but no idea is perfect. I definitely concede that living in a state with no legalized abortion would make it tougher to get an abortion. I imagine that poorer rural women who want an abortion sometimes deal with the same thing right now.
Kavanaugh's debts and bank balances have gone up & down rather abruptly. His financial disclosure forms indicated that in 2016, his credit card debt ranged from $60,000 to $200,000, but in 2017 all of his debt (excluding his mortgage) was gone.
Here are the questions that Whitehouse has submitted to Judge Kavanaugh:
