Reply to Is everyone just stunned that we’ve stepped back 50 years in time?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Is everyone just stunned that we’ve stepped back 50 years in time?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for.  I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs.  I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution.  I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall.   But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.[/quote]

I’m not shocked at all.  But it’s fundamentally anti American to believe that you should impose Christianity on us.  It’s literally Amendment numero uno.  [/quote]

Sincerely believing that abortion is infanticide and opposing it for that reason isn't imposing Christianity on anyone, stop making false equivalencies. I know non religious folk, and non Christians that are anti-abortion. There is nothing anti-American about being opposed to abortion on the grounds that one sincerely believes that it is infanticide - according to that perspective banning abortion has nothing to do with violating ones rights any more than banning murder does. If you are unable to empathize with or understand this perspective even if you think its fully wrong, and you have distilled all anti-abortion folks into only Southern, fundamentalist Christians who are literally out to violate women's rights because they get off on that, it is sad but it is not surprising given how divided this country is. Folks on the right do the same thing - view pro abortion folks as blood thirsty / heathen baby killers when in reality most pro abortion folks sincerely believe that it isn't killing a child and it is just a medical procedure and therefore not allowing it is a major rights violation. My point is, have some empathy and understanding for folks from different backgrounds with different life experiences -- although it is easy to fall into the nihilist view that half of your country men are evil and out to get you and trample on your rights, this isn't the actual reality. Most folks on both sides are good human beings who believe what they believe sincerely.

ake this from a fellow pro-choice person who possibly just has different life views / experiences than you - [/quote]

The Supreme Court didn’t rule that abortion is murder or even that it is wrong. They may believe that but the ruling is that no Constitutionally protected rights are involved so states are free to ban it or allow it or regulate it as they see fit. [/quote]

They tossed aside precedent and stare decisis, lied in their confirmation, and are injecting religiously based jurisprudence into their rulings which will upend medical care for millions where it didn’t previously exist, but sure, it’s all so innocuous. I mean hey why get upset right? Lol.[/quote]

DP.  You can repeat this lie as much as you want, but no one lied.  Period.  Try acting like an adult.[/quote]

It's not a lie, it's the truth.  
- DP[/quote]

Sorry, AOC.  You’re wrong.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/28/did-supreme-court-justices-lie-by-claiming-they-wouldnt-overturn-roe-v-wade-heres-what-they-actually-said/

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/scotus-verify/what-justices-gorsuch-barrett-kavanaugh-said-roe-v-wade-confirmation-hearings/536-cdc8cbaa-cf81-4db9-a861-05ea5fbcb05a

[/quote]

Yes, everybody knows they danced around the issue becayse they didn't have the integrity to outright state their intent.  It's still less than straightforward, and deceptive.  Susan Collins agrees.[/quote]

So you admit:  no one lied.  Thank you and goodbye.[/quote]

They sure didn't tell the truth.[/quote]

Sure they did.  In fact, this is referred to as The Ginsburg Rule/Standard.  Educate yourself.

Under the so-called “Ginsburg Standard,” a nominee for the Supreme Court may withhold from commenting on topics or cases that could come up before the bench in the future.

The standard originated when Justice Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearings, declined to answer certain questions that she believed could come back before the Court in the future. For example, she did not comment on topics such as the right to bear arms, the death penalty and private school vouchers. A recent Supreme Court Nominee Responsiveness Study (“Responsiveness Study”) conducted by Lori Ringhand, Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, and Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Political Science and director of Legal Studies at the University of Massachusetts, found that Ginsburg refused to respond approximately 10% of the time.

Ginsburg is famous for her quote during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on July 20, 1993, in which she stated: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

[b]While she declined in her hearings to talk about future cases, Ginsburg did address key issues during her hearings, including touchy topics ranging from abortion, to the right of privacy, to gender discrimination, to free speech. To this end, she was willing to comment on precedent, explained Margo Schlanger, a current professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former Ginsburg clerk. “So when she is asked about prior cases, she talks about her views in those cases. What she declined in her hearings to talk about was future cases.”[/b]

[/quote]

No, that's not what they did.  They said quite a number of far more affirmative things than "I can't comment on it" - they said things like "it's the law of the land" "it should be respected" "it should be upheld" "no good Justice would overturn it" and so on.   Watch the videos again.   They most definitely misled the Senate.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics