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.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Just a side note:

    Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of Trump asylum rule

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

    7-2 BTW
    7-2 means that even some of the court's liberals voted in favor of it.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      7-2 means that even some of the court's liberals voted in favor of it.
      Yep!
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        A quick check of the supreme court members when Roe v Wade was passed suggests that there was neither a Republican-Democrat nor a conservative-liberal split in that vote. I don't see anything that suggests RvW was a result of the left subverting the legal process.
        Whatever it was, the decision was certainly not conservative, however you purport to "quickly check" the justices involved.

        And even if it was, since when did "they did it first" become a legitimate excuse?
        Lemme know when you figure out that I'm as much against that as you ostensibly are. I want conservative justices to correct the gross misreading of the Constitution that was Roe v. Wade, not create further errors supporting positions with which I happen to agree.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Whatever it was, the decision was certainly not conservative, however you purport to "quickly check" the justices involved.


          Lemme know when you figure out that I'm as much against that as you ostensibly are. I want conservative justices to correct the gross misreading of the Constitution that was Roe v. Wade, not create further errors supporting positions with which I happen to agree.
          Out of curiosity, would you be in support of a hypothetical overturning of Roe that went completely in the other direction, i.e. finding that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits abortion?
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            Out of curiosity, would you be in support of a hypothetical overturning of Roe that went completely in the other direction, i.e. finding that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits abortion?
            I would, though what is likely to happen is that the question will be returned to the states - where it belonged.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I would, though what is likely to happen is that the question will be returned to the states - where it belonged.
              If the states aren't going to protect life (a value promoted in the Declaration of Independence) then I think it falls on the federal government to intervene, as it did on the issue of slavery. Political forecasters think fewer than half of states would actually ban it if Roe fell.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                If the states aren't going to protect life (a value promoted in the Declaration of Independence) then I think it falls on the federal government to intervene, as it did on the issue of slavery. Political forecasters think fewer than half of states would actually ban it if Roe fell.
                Like I said - I would support that.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  Out of curiosity, would you be in support of a hypothetical overturning of Roe that went completely in the other direction, i.e. finding that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits abortion?
                  I'm not sure how the Constitution could be read that way. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand....
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Out of curiosity, would you be in support of a hypothetical overturning of Roe that went completely in the other direction, i.e. finding that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits abortion?
                    Reluctantly, but then I'd hope for a serious movement to amend the Constitution.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Nationalist.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      So instead of making a case against abortion etc that would persuade existing judges to adopt your views and change the laws, you're appointing new judges that already agree with you and who will change the laws regardless of whether there is any reason to do so.

                      Your entire strategy is an admission that you have no legitimate arguments and all you can do is subvert the legal process, and you voted for Trump because he promised to do so.
                      Courts don't change laws, they interpret and/or strike down laws. But that, admittedly, is a bit of semantics. But in any event, this is a nonsense argument. The arguments often don't change when it comes to overturning something. Did anyone stumble upon some new, brilliant legal argument that convinced the Supreme Court that minimum wage laws weren't unconstitutional after all? Not as far as I know, but the court itself changed and overruled their previous rulings on the matter.

                      As for the claim there are no legitimate arguments, there's plenty of legitimate arguments against Roe v. Wade, some offered by people who were strongly pro-choice.

                      For that matter, what I find notable about this argument is that what you decry is exactly what people always do with legislators. A legislator isn't buying your argument for the passing or repeal of a law? You elect a new legislator. No one would claim that's somehow wrong. Aha, you say, but that's the legislature. Courts work differently. Well, they're supposed to, but in a case like Roe v. Wade where they clearly took the job of legislature and effectively enacted laws, you have to treat them like a legislature (seriously, the rules they set up in that case concerning what you could restrict and when during pregnancy read more like an enacted law than a court decision).

                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      7-2 means that even some of the court's liberals voted in favor of it.
                      We don't know it was 7-2, all we know is that Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. It's entirely possible some justices didn't agree but didn't feel strongly enough to write or join a dissent over it.

                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      Out of curiosity, would you be in support of a hypothetical overturning of Roe that went completely in the other direction, i.e. finding that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits abortion?
                      I know this was directed at Cow Poke, but I think an overruling of Roe v. Wade with the claim the Constitution prohibits abortion would be on grounds as shaky, if not even shakier, than Roe v. Wade itself. Certainly, it's a position that no Supreme Court justice--even those who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade--has argued for, so even if there is merit in it from an argument perspective it's not going to happen.

                      I suppose someone could try to make the argument that abortion violates natural/moral law, which would trump even the Constitution--but that's a whole argument to itself.

                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      If the states aren't going to protect life (a value promoted in the Declaration of Independence) then I think it falls on the federal government to intervene, as it did on the issue of slavery.
                      What did the federal government do on the issue of slavery? It by and large stayed out of the debate, leaving it for individual states to deal with. What intervention there was was less about getting rid of slavery where it was and more about stopping its spread. Unless we're counting the Civil War, but that was more over keeping the country together than getting rid of slavery--even if it did end up aiding considerably in that task.

                      Or is this a reference to Thirteenth Amendment? Because that, like any amendment, was only partially federal given you had to get a whole lot of states to sign up for it.

                      Political forecasters think fewer than half of states would actually ban it if Roe fell.
                      I expect fewer than half of states would ban it. But many of those who wouldn't ban it would restrict it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                        Reluctantly, but then I'd hope for a serious movement to amend the Constitution.
                        Ok, I see I totally misread the post to which I replied.

                        I suspect my caffeine pills are of insufficient potency.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Nationalist.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          I'm not sure how the Constitution could be read that way. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand....
                          As my constitutional law professor often pointed out, unlike the Constitution the DI is not the law of the land.

                          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)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            The bottom line:

                            'Historic milestone': Senate confirms 150th Trump judicial nominee

                            The U.S. Senate confirmed President Trump’s 150th judicial nominee Wednesday, helping to fulfill the president’s campaign promise to remake the federal bench with a conservative bent.

                            Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham called the number of confirmations a “historic milestone.”

                            “These conservative judicial appointments will impact our nation for years to come,” the South Carolina Republican said.

                            Six district court nominees won confirmation Wednesday, bringing the president’s total number of appointed judges to the lower federal courts to 105. Mr. Trump has also appointed 43 circuit court nominees and two Supreme Court justices since taking office.


                            https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...icial-nominee/
                            Don't care to hear about your excuses for voting for a lying, theiving, white nationalist, undemocratic, treasonous con man, wannabe dictator, seer. One way or another, impeachment by Congress or ousting by election, Trump is going down, and then you won't have to make excuses for yourselves anymore. Won't that be nice?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Don't care to hear about your excuses for voting for a lying, theiving, white nationalist, undemocratic, treasonous con man, wannabe dictator, seer.
                              You're talking just like your version of him, Jimmy! You're becoming Trump! He OWNS you.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                As my constitutional law professor often pointed out, unlike the Constitution the DI is not the law of the land.
                                Correct. However, it is not without value.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X