Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, leaves issue up to states
Collapse
X
-
Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
- 1 like
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
I have read the FAQ and it all looks dandy to me.
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/ar...ive-health-act
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
Proof that Little Frankie is a moron. None of them would have been stupid enough to make such a claim. Turley has already repeatedly called out those who make the claim, because he attended the hearings. They affirmed Roe v. Wade was "settled law." They affirmed in general terms the principle of "stare decisis." But they would never be fool enough to make direct statements about how they would rule w.r.t. a particular case. Neither "settled law" nor "stare decisis" is inviolable. Interestingly, the practice of carefully avoiding giving specific answers about such things has come to be known as "the Ginsberg Rule," because RBG caused more than a little dyspepsia during her Senate confirmation by her frequent use of the practice."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostHutchinson was not a first hand witness to the incident in the car. But she was told about it. J6 will no doubt want to question those present in the car.
Now that they established that bar I wonder how the left would act if that were the standard applied into any investigation of old Joe and his spawn. If allowed, we probably should already be organizing the firing squad.
As for "no doubt" wanting to question those present... I wouldn't put any money on that. You already have instances of presenting evidence that had been blatantly tampered with and altered so you might be underestimating their gall. And even if they do, will it be behind closed doors so we are forced to rely on Schiff for an accurate portrayal of their testimony. The same guy who completely and totally altered the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian leader (and might have gotten away with it if Trump hadn't expectantly declassified the call and released it).
I figure that at best if they permit them to testify (and by all accounts, the agents are chomping at the bit to set the record straight) the MSM will decide that they really need to be broadcasting something else that day
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostTrumplovers are making a big deal out of very little but I think we are moving towards some serious legal action against Trump’s CoS.
42 years later and they still haven't learned a thing.
And while some were trying to dismiss it as maybe getting a detail or two wrong, her claims were far more about getting details wrong. It is making up an entire incident.
Moreover, her credibility has been called into question again, this time over a handwritten note that she says she wrote but a lawyer denies that and says he wrote it. A simple handwriting analysis should solve that but will the J6 circus ever have that done. My bet would be on no.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostI mean states could start trying to impose sanctions on the other states...oh wait liberal california has already let that genie out of the bottle under trump.
It goes back to the adage that whenever they're in power they act like that is a permanent situation, and whenever they're out of power they act like that is a permanent situation as well. They have zero foresight for consequences.
Maybe that's why they keep getting blindsided by supposed unintended consequences of their actions -- even when they are specifically warned that those consequences will result.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Postthe fascists want to prevent free movement:
Very un-american by any standard.
Americans, resist fascist leadership. Quit your church!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
It is also interesting that in the interview he not only noted that the Trump appointees to the SCOTUS were dishonest in their hearings where they stated they would not try and overturn Roe vs Wade; and that overturning Roe vs. Wade might not be the end of the matter.
SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostYes. Blue states and Red states who hate each other. Definitely not United States. The difference more defined now by the SCOTUS ruling. Could SCOTUS itself split into SCOTRS and SCOTBS?
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostGood job impeaching your own source.
SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do.
What happens is that the Democrats will keep asking and rephrasing the question until the nominee finally says something that the Democrat thinks they can use in the future.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIt is also interesting that in the interview he not only noted that the Trump appointees to the SCOTUS were dishonest in their hearings where they stated they would not try and overturn Roe vs Wade; and that overturning Roe vs. Wade might not be the end of the matter.
GINSBURG
JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. 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.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
KAGAN
SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN: “[T]he Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. [S]ome of the limits I talked about in [a law review] article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)
Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?” …
ELENA KAGAN RESPONSE: “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.” (Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan: Response To Questions For The Record, P.2, 2010)
KAGAN: “…inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court. And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.80, 6/28-30 &7/1/2010)
SOTOMAYOR
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?”
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “My question to the chief justice and now to you is: do you agree with the direction the Supreme Court has moved in more narrowly, interpreting congressional authority to enact laws under the Commerce Clause? Generally, not relating to any one case.”
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “No, I know. But the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me as a Second Circuit judge or, again, if I'm fortunate enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. So it's not a case I can answer in a broad statement.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
BREYER
JUDGE STEPHEN BREYER: “Let us imagine, if I am lucky and if you find me qualified and vote to confirm me, I will be a member of the Supreme Court, and, as a member of that Court, I will consider with an open mind the cases that arise in that Court. And there is nothing more important to a judge than to have an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments...I will try very hard to give you an impression, an understanding of how I think about legal problems of all different kinds. At the same time, I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)
FORMER SEN. STROM THURMOND (R-SC): “Judge Breyer, it is likely that Justice Blackmun is most widely known to the public as the author of Roe v. Wade. What was your impression of his majority opinion in that landmark decision? In particular, give us your thoughts on where he draws the line at different points during pregnancy as it relates to the State's interest in the regulation of abortion-related services? For instance, do you agree that the first trimester of pregnancy is distinctive and that the State should not be able to prohibit abortion during that period?”
JUDGE BREYER: “You are asking questions, Senator, that I know are matters of enormous controversy...The questions that you are putting to me are matters of how that basic right applies, where it applies, under what circumstances. And I do not think I should go into those for the reason that those are likely to be the subject of litigation in front of the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)
ROBERTS
JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: “It's a matter of great importance not only to potential Justices but to judges. We're sensitive to the need to maintain the independence and integrity of the court. I think it's vitally important that nominees, to use Justice Ginsburg's words, ‘no hints, no forecasts, no previews.’ They go on the Court not as a delegate from this committee with certain commitments laid out and how they're going to approach cases, they go on the Court as Justices who will approach cases with an open mind and decide those cases in light of the arguments presented, the record presented and the rule of law. And the litigants before them have a right to expect that and to have the appearance of that as well. That has been the approach that all of the Justices have taken.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 9/13/2005)
ABC’S TERRY MORAN: “…this week, in an extraordinary statement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Democrat nominated by President Clinton, took Roberts’s side.”
JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “Judge Roberts was unquestionably right.” (ABC’s “World News Tonight,” 9/29/2005)
ALITO
JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: “But the line that I have to draw, and I think every nominee, including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that, when it comes to something that realistically could come before the Court, they can’t answer about how they would decide that question. That would be a disservice to the judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 1/11/2006)
- 1 like
Comment
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostThe fascists want to prevent free movement:
Very un-American by any standard.
Americans, resist fascist leadership. Quit your Church!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostGood job impeaching your own source.
SCOTUS nominees make a point of never promising to rule on hypothetical cases or even actual cases working their way toward the Supreme Court. For one thing they would have to recuse themselves if they did so. Politicians from both sides do their best to get them to do so but none ever do."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
Yes. Blue states and Red states who hate each other. Definitely not United States. The difference more defined now by the SCOTUS ruling. Could SCOTUS itself split into SCOTRS and SCOTBS?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIf you strip any and all penalties for ignoring the "law" and eliminated the oversight that would call out any violations, you have thereby legalized it no matter how much they want to pretend to the contrary. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to "celebrate."
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
16 responses
94 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:52 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
2 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:45 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
22 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
51 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 09:43 AM
|
Comment