Anonymous
12/15/2016 07:16
Subject: SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.
Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.
And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.
This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.
Anonymous
12/15/2016 06:10
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
NP
If you had protected your uterus this wouldn't be an issue.
Birth control fails, brain trust. I realize you are perfect and this would never happen to you but it does to many women all the time. There's also the whole issue of rape and incest that infiltrates a girl too young to "protect her uterus." Not that you give a shit, because a cluster of cells is more important to you than an 11 year old carrying her stepfathers embryo.
Anonymous
12/15/2016 06:05
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
NP
If you had protected your uterus this wouldn't be an issue.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:43
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
You can't reason with a psychopath.
Trump that one, ace.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:25
Subject: SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think RGB could easily serve well into her 90s and she's sharp as a tack.
She's senile. She can't control her mouth. If she had her wits about her she'd never have embarrassed herself the way she did by attacking Trump, for which she had to apologize.
I agree that she is not mentally all there compared to a few years ago. She also made some dumb remarks about not standing for the national anthem and had to back down.
It is probably a good argument for mandatory retirement by say 80 years of age.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:22
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Just let each state decide how to deal with abortions.
It would end all the ruckus on the issue. Why should the federal government compel individual states to allow abortions or if R v W is overturned then preventing states from allowing abortions if they choose to do so?
It would end all the ruckus on the issue. Why should the federal government compel individual states to allow abortions or if R v W is overturned then preventing states from allowing abortions if they choose to do so?
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:18
Subject: SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:I think RGB could easily serve well into her 90s and she's sharp as a tack.
She's senile. She can't control her mouth. If she had her wits about her she'd never have embarrassed herself the way she did by attacking Trump, for which she had to apologize.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:13
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
Some comments make me long for retroactive abortion. My body is mine and I should be the only one to make the decision as to whether I want to procreate. Certainly not a jerk I do not know.
I agree. And you should be 100% responsible for financially supporting any children that come out of your body, since you are the "only one to make the decision...to procreate." I am sure you also agree that should apply to all children of all women, too.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:08
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
Nope. Sorry. They don't. When exercising your so called "rights" harms/ kills another, then your rights end.
Luckily, that's only opinion. And, it's one a majority of Americans don't share. And, if RvW is overturned -and I'm not convinced it will be without undercutting numerous other rights that flow from our right to privacy- abortions will still happen, though mostly in blue states. Only this time, the result will be deaths of women from illegal abortions in those states that outlaw it. And those deaths will be on your hands. But, as you've subjugated women to brood mares, I doubt you care abou that. And all those babies in the red states, well, I guess they and their parents are on their own.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 22:04
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
Nope. Sorry. They don't. When exercising your so called "rights" harms/ kills another, then your rights end.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 21:58
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 21:57
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
Well, a disabled American, I would like to think then that my rights trump the rights of an unwanted embryo in my uterus. Play that one, ace.
do black lives matter then? Are you concerned about the welfare of Latinos and Muslims under Trump? Or are you another white supremacist who wants to deny women their full rights because your church tells you removing those cells equals murdering babies?
Of course black lives matter. ALL lives matter. Amazingly, that has to be explained to some people.
+1.
All lives matter, even if some are damn dumb.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 21:55
Subject: SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:The balance of the SC with Scalia in it was good for the country. Some decisions made liberals mad. Some made conservatives mad. Most people were just fine with the decisions.
The last thing we want is a liberal SC. It would destroy this country.
Keeping the old balance is best, with second best being a conservative leaning court.
Wrong.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 21:50
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
"The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign."
---John Randolph---
The US Supreme Court lacks constitutional authority to legislate. Activist judges must be impeached, for they become an oligarchy thus our sovereign when they usurp Article I of the United States Constitution.
---John Randolph---
The US Supreme Court lacks constitutional authority to legislate. Activist judges must be impeached, for they become an oligarchy thus our sovereign when they usurp Article I of the United States Constitution.
Anonymous
12/14/2016 21:44
Subject: Re:SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.
Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights
It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."
You believe an embryo or a fetus before viability should have greater rights than a woman. So it goes men > male embryos > females embryos > women. Why do you think women should lose rights after they are born?
It is the responsibility of the government to protect the most weak and vulnerable among us, perhaps from people such as yourself who wish them harm. That includes children, the elderly, the mentally impaired, the disabled, etc. etc. And yes, unborn children as well.
do black lives matter then? Are you concerned about the welfare of Latinos and Muslims under Trump? Or are you another white supremacist who wants to deny women their full rights because your church tells you removing those cells equals murdering babies?
Of course black lives matter. ALL lives matter. Amazingly, that has to be explained to some people.
+1.
All lives matter, even if some are damn dumb.