Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

Do you agree wt the draft majority opinion

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 28 80.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
JJ Husker said:
Please provide some comparable examples. I’ll be lenient, the examples must have been decided within 4 years of the deciding justice’s confirmation hearings where they are on record stating what they subsequently voted to overturn was “settled law” and “precedent”. To be clear, THAT is the issue, not simply that something was overturned. So show me the other SC liars.
Click to expand...


Who didn't know this would be the answer?

Archy1221 said:
I think this is where the goalpost emoji gets inserted.  
Click to expand...

 
ZRod said:
You need to get out more. There are plenty of moms who hate their children and wish they were never born. Moms who beat their children. Moms who curse their children. Moms who kick their children out onto the street. Don't be so naive.
Click to expand...
Lol.

I’m a business owner who is very active in multiple community and school leadership boards, so yeah, I get out plenty. Sounds like I hang around the good kind of people. Maybe you should assess who you surround yourself with.

So the answer to this (alleged) rampant issue of child hating mothers is to…. kill them before they ever have a chance? Right…. And I’d only be naive if I believed so many mothers had confided in you that they wish their children had been aborted.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Lol.

I’m a business owner who is very active in multiple community and school leadership boards, so yeah, I get out plenty. Sounds like I hang around the good kind of people. Maybe you should assess who you surround yourself with.

So the answer to this (alleged) rampant issue of child hating mothers is to…. kill them before they ever have a chance? Right…. And I’d only be naive if I believed so many mothers had confided in you that they wish their children had been aborted.
Click to expand...


59% of women who have abortions already have children.

 
knapplc said:
Who didn't know this would be the answer?
Click to expand...
To a stupid question.  Of course that should be the answer.   He really thinks someone is gonna research SCOTUS confirmation hearings from 150 years ago :facepalm:   I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  

 
Archy1221 said:
To a stupid question.  Of course that should be the answer.   He really thinks someone is gonna research SCOTUS confirmation hearings from 150 years ago :facepalm:   I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  
Click to expand...


You insinuated you had knowledge of "what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled" and he asked for examples. Not only is that not a stupid question, it's a great question.

Of course, a person who doesn't actually know the answer to that would dodge the question, then try to make the conversation about the question without ever actually answering the question... and here we are.

 
knapplc said:
You insinuated you had knowledge of "what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled" and he asked for examples. Not only is that not a stupid question, it's a great question.

Of course, a person who doesn't actually know the answer to that would dodge the question, then try to make the conversation about the question without ever actually answering the question... and here we are.
Click to expand...
Ya, I posted the cases earlier there knap :facepalm: .  Not a good look for you here.  

 
knapplc said:
And this is how a question is dodged. Because he asked for specific examples with specific criteria, and whoosh off we went into another tangent.

It's a pattern we're all familiar with.
Click to expand...
And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.  The criteria he wanted was for someone to look into confirmation hearings from 50-200 years ago.   Ain’t gonna happen.  He can do the research if he wants to dispute someone.  The cases have been posted, then he changed what he wanted.   You chime in and say the same nonsense because you have sad trombone going on about the ruling and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  

 
Archy1221 said:
And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.  The criteria he wanted was for someone to look into confirmation hearings from 50-200 years ago.   Ain’t gonna happen.  He can do the research if he wants to dispute someone.  The cases have been posted, then he changed what he wanted.   You chime in and say the same nonsense because you have sad trombone going on about the ruling and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  
Click to expand...
To be clear, I didn’t change what I wanted. I never disputed that the SC had previously overturned itself, a stupidly simple thing that only you seem to think is being disputed. What I want is for you to catch up and try to keep up and discuss things related to and at least somewhat similar to the issue at hand.

Archy: The SC has reversed itself before.

JJ: Yeah, so what? Show me when SC justices have lied in their confirmation hearing and then virtually immediately overturned that same thing they called “settled law” and “precedent”.

Archy: Goalposts blah blah blah, JJ can look it up blah blah blah

:facepalm:  f#&% it’s exhausting trying to keep you on topic.

 
JJ Husker said:
fore.

JJ: Yeah, so what? Show me when SC justices have lied in their confirmation hearing and then virtually immediately overturned that same thing they called “settled law” and “precedent”.
Click to expand...
1) show me where the SC Justices lied  in their hearings.

2) the next point moot because the first didn’t happen.   Plus you are asking for unrealistic information, 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman said:
Simple sequence of events:

1. Conservatives on court lied to Senate and entire country stating Roe was settled law and thus safe to get confirmed.

2. They summarily overturn it with no accountability.

3. Thomas explicitly states we should revisit the cases guaranteeing a right to gay marriage and contraception and outlawing sodomy laws.

In no way, shape or form is any of the concern melodramatic. People are correctly concerned about the rights these clowns have out and out told us they want to go after next.
Click to expand...


Given all the things I never thought would happen that I've seen happen the past few years, I'm not betting against America's worst instincts. 

 
Archy1221 said:
1) show me where the SC Justices lied  in their hearings.

2) the next point moot because the first didn’t happen.   Plus you are asking for unrealistic information, 
Click to expand...


Lied as in guilty of perjury? No. Of course they're too smart for that.

Mislead Congress in order to get nominated, knowing their full intention of overturning Roe v Wade once they had the numbers in place?

Of course.

I'm not uncomfortable calling it lying because they certainly didn't tell the truth, something that should be obvious now, even to you.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Lied as in guilty of perjury? No. Of course they're too smart for that.

Mislead Congress in order to get nominated, knowing their full intention of overturning Roe v Wade once they had the numbers in place?

Of course.

I'm not uncomfortable calling it lying because they certainly didn't tell the truth, something that should be obvious now, even to you.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings
Click to expand...


Incoming "ThAT's NoT AcKShULlY LyINg" in 3, 2, 1....

 
"There's a 99% chance that I know what I'm doing"

:proceeds to not have any idea what I'm doing:

"Technically I didn't lie. There was a 1% chance and the odds worked out that way. Show me where I lied??? I didn't lie."

 
Back
Top