The Courts (not specific to either party)

[knapplc]

[knapplc]

The same people who insist an immigrant's first step into America shouldn't be to break our immigration laws sure seem silent on the fact that four Christian Justices lied to get onto the court.

 

If you have to lie to get on the Supreme Court... maybe you don't belong on the Supreme Court.

 

 

[Decoy73]

The SCOTUS isn't about the "law", but rather a perpetual extension of the partisan agendas of current and past POTUS administrations.

[DevoHusker]

42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The same people who insist an immigrant's first step into America shouldn't be to break our immigration laws sure seem silent on the fact that four Christian Justices lied to get onto the court.

 

If you have to lie to get on the Supreme Court... maybe you don't belong on the Supreme Court.

 

 

I am not saying I applaud their decision, but how did they lie? They said it was settled precedent, and it was, when they said it.

They didn't promise they wouldn't touch Roe or reconsider their stance...?

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I am not saying I applaud their decision, but how did they lie? They said it was settled precedent, and it was, when they said it.

They didn't promise they wouldn't touch Roe or reconsider their stance...?

 

Please. The questions were specifically about the sanctity of Roe v. Wade, and they all lied and claimed it was precedent.

 

Let's not play this game. It was crystal clear what the questions were about and how they answered. They flat lied.

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

So does that mean pro-choicers are pro-death?  Of course not.      We've had this little tit-for-tat before.  Forget the names. The names only divide.   Most pro-lifers put the life of the baby in the womb as the first priority - that doesn't make them anti-choice.  I'm not anti-choice - that isn't my motivation.  My motivation is the preservation of the life in the womb.   Cannot the govt protect the life in the womb as well as provide for all of the woman's needs as well?  If we can fund wars overseas we can provide help to every woman who needs it while carrying that baby and have programs to assist the child after birth -   I'd like to find that rare political candidate who is pro-life in the womb and pro-life outside of the womb - who can bridge the divide between the 2 groups.  At this point I suspect that candidate would show up on the Dem side as I'm not sure when or if  the GOP will ever take the lead on domestic social/welfare issues. 

Would you prefer a woman carry a pregnancy of a child to term if she knows it will die painfully and expensively if it didn’t endanger the life of the mother?

 

edit: follow up question.

 

Assuming you are a empathetic person and would be okay with aborting the pregnancy, where would a woman have such a procedure done in a state that outlaws abortions outside of health of the mother?

[DevoHusker]

22 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Please. The questions were specifically about the sanctity of Roe v. Wade, and they all lied and claimed it was precedent.

 

Let's not play this game. It was crystal clear what the questions were about and how they answered. They flat lied.

I don't agree. Also, your link says specifically that Barret was not talking about Roe.

 

And again, I am not sure where I personally stand on their decision.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

Well then yes, some states want to ban contraceptives as they have the morning after pill on the chopping block without RvW protections.

Ok, then use a rubber, IUD, birth control, shot, etc… I would disagree with banning the morning after pill though.  

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

The same people who insist an immigrant's first step into America shouldn't be to break our immigration laws sure seem silent on the fact that four Christian Justices lied to get onto the court.

 

If you have to lie to get on the Supreme Court... maybe you don't belong on the Supreme Court.

 

 

They didn’t lie.  Try looking at the words used.  

[BigRedBuster]

Well, I will say that this is a subject that could be a very interesting discussion point between me and my wife.  We are both pro-life.  However, I don't like this decision based on the points I've posted here.  She, on the other hand, thinks this is the greatest political achievement ever.  I respect her opinions, so I have never really pushed back against them.  However, we were listening to Biden's comments over lunch.  I thought they were very well stated, professional and respectful even though he adamantly disagrees with the decision.  She, on the other hand, was upset that he would be saying such things because "He's the leader of the country and he needs to respect the decisions of the SCOTUS".

 

That's where I pushed back and said, "as President, he can't express his opinion"?  She said "no.  There are three equal branches of the government and the SCOTUS is equal to the President so he should respect that".  I said..."So, if congress does something that he doesn't like, he shouldn't express his opinion on it?"  

 

She didn't have an answer.

 

I have the feeling this is going to be an interesting discussion into the future.  But, what is so dang frustrating with me is that now she and others in the discussions who are pro-life and love this decision....look at people like me as on "the other side".  Which...I'm not.  Continuing to reduce abortions in this country has been happening for the last 50 years without this decision and I support just about everything that America has done to make that happen with access to contraception, improved healthcare for women (even though they need more...especially now), sex education....etc.

 

BUT....just because of the discussions around this one decision, I feel that all these other efforts are in danger.

 

It's so damn frustrating.

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I am not saying I applaud their decision, but how did they lie? They said it was settled precedent, and it was, when they said it.

They didn't promise they wouldn't touch Roe or reconsider their stance...?

That’s correct and it was explained to the poster before 

[Archy1221]

40 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Please. The questions were specifically about the sanctity of Roe v. Wade, and they all lied and claimed it was precedent.

 

Let's not play this game. It was crystal clear what the questions were about and how they answered. They flat lied.

Go back in history to see what else was precedent!

[teachercd]

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Ok, then use a rubber, IUD, birth control, shot, etc… I would disagree with banning the morning after pill though.  

A rubber?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[funhusker]

51 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Nebraska Dems need to realize they aren’t California Dems.  They have been unhitched from “defending the indefensible” in Nebraska.  I’m thinking more and more this could be good if played right.