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

[Notre Dame Joe]

16 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Lets be honest here. This has absolutely nothing to do with unborn babies. This has 100% to do with the economy. In order to function and further enrich the wealthy, the American economy needs a poor workforce to provide labor. USA's birthrate has been declining for decades. Leading to a shortage of cheap American labor, thaT currently  defines America. Further more, there are fewer Americans to buy the product produced by said cheap labor. 

 

The solution, instead of embracing immigration, they force poor  American women to repopulate the cheap American workforce in order to maintain and enrich wealth.

 

If true is that sustainable?  Say: a country does not have a birthrate that can sustain its population.  So it relies on immigrants from different countries speaking different languages.  

 

6 hours ago, 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.

 

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You may be surprised at what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled.  

 

If Christopher Hitchens hadn't drank himself to death and was alive today he would say, that which was created by judicial activism can be abolished by judicial activism.  And please let me out of this coffin

[B.B. Hemingway]

6 hours ago, funhusker said:

I’m assuming you live in NE?

 

Will you vote for a person that is asking a 12-year-old rape victim to carry a child?

 

Because that’s pretty much every Republican in our govt right now.

 

edit: and I do apologize for the unnecessary tone in my responses last night.  Beers and emotions don’t mix well on message boards.

I don’t live in Nebraska anymore, and as I mentioned before, I haven’t voted since Barack Obama’s election. I have genuinely lost faith in all politicians, and their public/private motives. 

I have three daughters, so I look at this whole thing through that lense. So no, I wouldn’t be comfortable supporting those politicians in your example.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I don’t live in Nebraska anymore, and as I mentioned before, I haven’t voted since Barack Obama’s election. I have genuinely lost faith in all politicians, and their public/private motives. 

I have three daughters, so I look at this whole thing through that lense. So no, I wouldn’t be comfortable supporting those politicians in your example.

3 daughters???

 

Dude, if they are not already in HS let me tell you right now...Good luck!  Hahaha

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I don’t live in Nebraska anymore, and as I mentioned before, I haven’t voted since Barack Obama’s election. I have genuinely lost faith in all politicians, and their public/private motives. 

I have three daughters, so I look at this whole thing through that lense. So no, I wouldn’t be comfortable supporting those politicians in your example.

 
 

And again, my apologies.  I overstepped yesterday with you.  You didn’t deserve that.

[Notre Dame Joe]

3 hours ago, 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  I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  

There is nothing to research.  They did not hold hearings as we know them today for SCOTUS nominations until the second half of the 20th century.  The only things congress needed ot review was: Is this man qualified?  Would he take a bribe. That is because for the first part of judicial history everyone was an 'originalist' before we needed that word to distinguish them from the progressives.  Reading law to figure out what the authors meant was called lawyering, it was not one school of thought. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

 
 

And again, my apologies.  I overstepped yesterday with you.  You didn’t deserve that.

No worries. I appreciate it, though.

[Ulty]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.

 

Come on now, even when arguments get pissy, knapplc is still way more respected on this board than you are. By far.

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

3 daughters???

 

Dude, if they are not already in HS let me tell you right now...Good luck!  Hahaha

Oldest is going to be a Sophmore! Yeah. Not always easy lol

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

Come on now, even when arguments get pissy, knapplc is still way more respected on this board than you are. By far.

[teachercd]

25 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

Come on now, even when arguments get pissy, knapplc is still way more respected on this board than you are. By far.

So this is ummm...a posting site about sports.  Unless someone is tossing out amazing inside info everyone should be at the same level of "respect" and that should be level 0.

 

[Danny Bateman]

34 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So this is ummm...a posting site about sports.  Unless someone is tossing out amazing inside info everyone should be at the same level of "respect" and that should be level 0.

 

 

I was a level 47 Paladin until I got killed by an orc.

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I was a level 47 Paladin until I got killed by an orc.

HA!!!  Exactly!

 

Years ago I played "Star Frontiers" and I was a "Vrusk", later I played Battletech (I think that was the name)...this is what that is...it is the internet...where fat women are slim and bald dudes have hair.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

If true is that sustainable?  Say: a country does not have a birthrate that can sustain its population.  So it relies on immigrants from different countries speaking different languages.  

 

 

 

If Christopher Hitchens hadn't drank himself to death and was alive today he would say, that which was created by judicial activism can be abolished by judicial activism.  And please let me out of this coffin

The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.

 

[teachercd]

12 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.

 

I know you hate choice, that is fine, what other choices do you hate?

[Notre Dame Joe]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.

 

 

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I know you hate choice, that is fine, what other choices do you hate?

Are you guys both hacking each other's account?