Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
Post Reply
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29568
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... uel-alito/

Hopefully it

a) is true, and

b) drives the 'progressives' nuts (...it's only a short drive I know... :roll: )
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 26030
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Ysabel Kid »

+1 both counts!
Image
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 29842
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Blaine »

It's just another last ditch effort to enrage the 'Crat base, and pick up a few centrists for the midterms....BTW, Roberts sided with the liberal judges on this one.
Sequere Tuo Consilio

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms[/i][/b]
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29568
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
At least Biden is on the right side, or was.... :lol: :roll:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... tes-issue/

And the Democrats react in their typical reasoned, calm, and peaceful way against the "violent fascists" on the right... :roll:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... on-ruling/

There must be some sort of genetic lack of self-awareness necessary for one to be a Democrat these days.... :lol:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 26030
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Ysabel Kid »

Already calls on social media for attacks against churches.

This was some abortionist who wanted to get the leftists in Congress to start legislation. Also aimed at starting violence and scaring the justices.

All this would do is kick it back to the states. But the left will go ape-stuff.

And Roberts? He long ago abandoned justice to be popular... :evil: :evil: :evil:
Image
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29568
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, it just makes sense for it to be a matter left to the states, because fundamentally it's inescapably homicide, with the details to work out being whether it is justified, negligent, accidental, premeditated, or whatever, and at what point it becomes "homicide" versus "destruction of tissue". Those are all things that states work out the details of in their laws against homicide. Homicide is and should be illegal everywhere, but different states have standards that vary as to under what circumstances it may be 'justified'. It should be up to the states to do that regardless of the age of the victim, or whether the victim happens to be in the uterus of someone else or not.

The left mostly seems to think that homicide is 'justifiable' if it is getting rid of someone who is inconveniently created and alive as a result of voluntary and recreational sex. I can't see it that way myself, but if that's what they want to argue and put into legislation, they at least need to do it at the right level of government. Of course there are a lot of things that are legal but not morally right. If I lived in a state where it was legal to shoot somebody who insulted you, I still wouldn't do it.

It's hard not to come to the conclusion that many on the left pretty much see the whole world as a place where the ends justify the means and as long as they come out ahead, their candidate wins, they get the contract, or they can have sex without consequences, it's all okay... :roll:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 26030
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Ysabel Kid »

Agreed. Let the 50 little laboratories of the states figure out what best suits their populations needs and wants. People will vote with their feet.

I remember when I was young my father telling me that if society only followed the law, and not what was morally right, it would soon destroy itself. After all, many make the calculation on the percentages - the chance they will get caught, and if caught, prosecuted, and if prosecuted, convicted, and if convicted, sentenced correctly. If people answer to a higher power they realize that none of those "if's" will be "if's" on the last day.
Image
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6326
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by jeepnik »

So, here's the thing. Roe v wade was ruled on by the court. That makes it law of the land and constitutional. Now another court is saying that's wrong. Basically overturning what is supposedly constitutional. My point is this. The rulings of the supreme courts are now and always have been driven by the political position of those on the court. Frankly, it should be madatory that the members of the court actually read the constitution. Because apparently they haven't for decades, if ever.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
Tycer
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7294
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:17 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Tycer »

jeepnik wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 9:13 pm
So, here's the thing. Roe v wade was ruled on by the court. That makes it law of the land and constitutional.
No it doesn’t. Just because the SC rules the FG has a power that exceeds the Constitution does not make it constitutional. There are a dozen or so cases where the SC has “decided “ that 1+1 don’t equal 2 and the FG has “powers “ not specifically stated in the C.
They all need to be re-ruled. The SC does not supersede the C.
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://schoolsucksproject.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Grizz »

Constitution can only be amended by the prescribed process. A lawless supreme court cannot legally alter the constitution. It has made itself an outlaw band of desperados by making a policy that murders MILLIONS of babies. that blood is on their hands.

they had no business ever making the u.s. government an instrument of genocide against Americans.

I hope to YHWH that Alito and the court succeed in rectifying the injustice [scotus] imposed on Americans.

Last edited by Grizz on Thu May 05, 2022 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
piller
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 13962
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by piller »

The SCOTUS made up an entirely new right by pulling it out of someone's dorsal orifice on the Roe V Wade case. It is long overdue to be corrected. I cannot find anyone who truly has studied our Constitution who thinks it should stay as it is. Let the States set their own laws on this matter. It is not a matter of interstate commerce, nor is it truly the right of the woman to have no interference due to the legalities of when life is to be protected. I kind of like Texas Law in the matter. Yes I have had to make some calls, and document extra information in the records on a few prescriptions, but that is just a part of following the spirit and letter of the law. Because of patient privacy, I cannot really say more. If it were a bad law in Texas, it would not have survived all the challenges and all the scrutiny it has received. The Texas law seems to work well and to cover all possible situations by not being too specific about most things other than the detectable heartbeat and that baby being able to live to birth and not be a danger to the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy would be. Bad laws are often specific, or all encompassing.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29568
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
Regardless of the opinions folks have on the specific issue, THIS is for sure [courtesy of jeepnik]:

"Frankly, it should be madatory that the members of the court actually read the constitution. Because apparently they haven't for decades, if ever."

....and the thing is, the Constitution wasn't meant as an esoteric document for only lawyers to pontificate over; it is plain and clear (18th Century English for sure, but still) language with EASILY understood meaning, for anyone who can read, or even if they can't, who can have it read to them. Phrases like "shall not be infringed" are NOT difficult... :roll:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
piller
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 13962
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by piller »

It was written in such a way that it could cover many future situations which the framers couldn't even have conceived of. They were truly brilliant men.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 29842
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by Blaine »

SCOUTS' purview is to test new law against the Constitution as it's clearly written. :idea: Evidently, this needs to be explained in great detail to them, and a majority of the people. :idea:
Sequere Tuo Consilio

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms[/i][/b]
User avatar
David
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 9:46 pm

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by David »

alg051022dAPC-1024x732.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29568
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

Post by AJMD429 »

.
https://youtu.be/MhvqPAWcR3k

Liberal hypocrisy on display.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
Post Reply