1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[wilberforce15]

"There have only been three justices in American history who were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote, and who were confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half the country. All three of them sit on the Supreme Court right now, and all three were appointed by donald."

Vox

Irrelevant. And only stupid people care.

 

[...]

 

[...]

 

[...]

 

[...]

Classy.

 

[bbsam]

It is honoring precedent, because you forget that Roe overturned precedent. Your entire liberal superstructure of legal victories for the last 100 years was overturning precedent. You just don't like it when your brand new precedent is overturned. And 10 or 50 years is brand new.

Obergefell is the radical overturning of precedent. Roe was the radical overturning of precedent. Etc.

Thomas wants to go back to older precedent. Roe was judicial activism. Thomas wants to honor the way it was treated before that.
There were no lies.

All judges, right and left, treat this the same way in hearings. They cannot give specific answers about specific cases, lest they prejudice the court before they hear it.

We’ll see. It’s an election year. Supposedly the republicans were going to own the congress. Something this big could change that.

Think about what you’re saying. Thomas and the others want to return America to precedent that was in place before probably 90% living Americans were born. They want an America that is foreign and quite frankly, ass backwards to what most people live and understand. And now the court has shown themselves able and willing to do so…

…just like the democrats said they would.

 

[bbsam]

Classy.

Illegal. Those folks should probably be arrested.

 

[wilberforce15]

We’ll see. It’s an election year. Supposedly the republicans were going to own the congress. Something this big could change that.

Think about what you’re saying. Thomas and the others want to return America to precedent that was in place before probably 90% living Americans were born. They want an America that is foreign and quite frankly, ass backwards to what most people live and understand. And now the court has shown themselves able and willing to do so…

…just like the democrats said they would.

No, there is no "we'll see." Thomas is honoring precedent. You just don't like which precedent he chose.

Yes, we want to return to many precedents that were in place before anyone alive was born. Yes. That's precisely what we want.

 

[bbsam]

No, there is no "we'll see." Thomas is honoring precedent. You just don't like which precedent he chose.

Yes, we want to return to many precedents that were in place before anyone alive was born. Yes. That's precisely what we want.

Then “we’ll see” is exactly how it is. We live in a representative republic and it’s possible that people voters don’t want that at all. It’s an election year. Republicans have waged the culture war brilliantly. I’m not sure they really want the end result.

 

[wilberforce15]

Then “we’ll see” is exactly how it is. We live in a representative republic and it’s possible that people voters don’t want that at all. It’s an election year. Republicans have waged the culture war brilliantly. I’m not sure they really want the end result.

So you are now acknowledging that Thomas and the conservatives are honoring precedent? Is that why we changed the subject entirely?

This is the first Republican culture war victory in over 50 years. That's why the left is so scared.

 

[bbsam]

So you are now acknowledging that Thomas and the conservatives are honoring precedent? Is that why we changed the subject entirely?

This is the first Republican culture war victory in over 50 years. That's why the left is so scared.

I’ll accept that you, Thomas and the others are playing in the outskirts of precedent. In their confirmation hearings they all referred to Roe as standing precedent and their respect for that standing precedent. Nobody ever said anything about the precedent before Roe taking precedent over Roe. That’s apparently where we are headed.

That’s a fairly disingenuous application of precedent. But that should be expected from a Republican Party that calls itself “conservative”.

 

[wilberforce15]

I’ll accept that you, Thomas and the others are playing in the outskirts of precedent. In their confirmation hearings they all referred to Roe as standing precedent and their respect for that standing precedent. Nobody ever said anything about the precedent before Roe taking precedent over Roe. That’s apparently where we are headed.

That’s a fairly disingenuous application of precedent. But that should be expected from a Republican Party that calls itself “conservative”

You guys took 200 years of precedent about marriage and sodomy and turned it into a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
It is conservative to overthrow that so-called "precedent" in Obergefell. Throwing out the radical bums and their commie decisions IS conservative.

Same with Roe. It was the radical departure from the Constitution. It is conservative to overthrow it.

Every single Obergefell judge "lied" in the same way you supposedly have a problem with. Not one of them told Congress that they think sticking things up your butt allows you to be respected the same as actual married people.

 

[wilberforce15]

If you think the public likes gay marriage and abortion so much, why don't you just put it in the Constitution like a real American would?

Why do you sit around and wait for judges to invent the rights out of thin air, and read them into very old language?

If the public really wants those things, put it in the Constitution.

 

[Wally]

Ask the pro baby killing protesters if it is ok to abort a pregnancy if you find out the baby is gay, lesbo, or tranny?

 

[bbsam]

You guys took 200 years of precedent about marriage and sodomy and turned it into a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
It is conservative to overthrow that so-called "precedent" in Obergefell. Throwing out the radical bums and their commie decisions IS conservative.

Same with Roe. It was the radical departure from the Constitution. It is conservative to overthrow it.

Every single Obergefell judge "lied" in the same way you supposedly have a problem with. Not one of them told Congress that they think sticking things up your butt allows you to be respected the same as actual married people.

And if you think that yours is how conservatives truly view things, then continue to run on them. I don’t believe that’s where Americans are right now and the further states like Texas, Ohio and Florida push such things, the more each will become a toss up state in the near future.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I’ll accept that you, Thomas and the others are playing in the outskirts of precedent. In their confirmation hearings they all referred to Roe as standing precedent and their respect for that standing precedent. Nobody ever said anything about the precedent before Roe taking precedent over Roe. That’s apparently where we are headed.

That’s a fairly disingenuous application of precedent. But that should be expected from a Republican Party that calls itself “conservative”.

Why do people Pretend the Supreme Court makes law? Abortion has never been codified anywhere. We do not live by judicial supremacy. Why didn’t Democrats make an amendment? Why are Democrats worried that states now have the right to decide? You have more control over your local elections anyway. If the people of that state want on-demand abortion they can vote for it. I have a feeling most people don’t want that and that agitates liberals.

 

[Thebrownblob]

And if you think that yours is how conservatives truly view things, then continue to run on them. I don’t believe that’s where Americans are right now and the further states like Texas, Ohio and Florida push such things, the more each will become a toss up state in the near future.

If that’s what you believe you should be happy. But you don’t believe that at all. Apparently you don’t trust the will of the people those states and you want the federal government to impose rules.

 

[bbsam]

You guys took 200 years of precedent about marriage and sodomy and turned it into a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
It is conservative to overthrow that so-called "precedent" in Obergefell. Throwing out the radical bums and their commie decisions IS conservative.

Same with Roe. It was the radical departure from the Constitution. It is conservative to overthrow it.

Every single Obergefell judge "lied" in the same way you supposedly have a problem with. Not one of them told Congress that they think sticking things up your butt allows you to be respected the same as actual married people.

“Sticking things up your butt…”

You need to indulge in more porn. That’s not a gay thing. That’s just a sex thing.

In fact, from what I understand, it’s a way many Christian girls have preserved their virginity.

Yes. Weird. But definitely a thing.

 

[bbsam]

Why do people Pretend the Supreme Court makes law? Abortion has never been codified anywhere. We do not live by judicial supremacy. Why didn’t Democrats make an amendment? Why are Democrats worried that states now have the right to decide? You have more control over your local elections anyway. If the people of that state want on-demand abortion they can vote for it. I have a feeling most people don’t want that and that agitates liberals.

Do we need an amendment so that my wife and I remain married even though I’m black and she’s white? Does that need to get 3/5 the states approval? Does Justice Thomas’ marriage also become suspect because there is no amendment?

 

[Thebrownblob]

“Sticking things up your butt…”

You need to indulge in more porn. That’s not a gay thing. That’s just a sex thing.

In fact, from what I understand, it’s a way many Christian girls have preserved their virginity.

Yes. Weird. But definitely a thing.

Christian? Why do you single One religion. What does this have to do with abortion? Two people having sex only affects those two people. And their personal morality. One woman who decides to take a life affects the baby in the womb.

Do we need an amendment so that my wife and I remain married even though I’m black and she’s white? Does that need to get 3/5 the states approval? Does Justice Thomas’ marriage also become suspect because there is no amendment?

apples and oranges buddy nice try. Who’s getting killed in that scenario? Clearly we don’t need any amendments for something like that because the only people worry about color skin are liberals. It consumes you like a fire. Guess what I see when I see a black man and a white woman or a white woman and a black man? Two human beings alive loving each other. In the abortion scenario there’s a dead human. Keeps spinning this yarn. I live in a very red state. Guess what the ruling did in my state which has very liberal abortion laws? Nothing nothing at all. Women can still go and have an abortion and Thats most likely never going to change. Just now the federal government can keep their Nose out of it.