The original Roe made no sense. Or if you do wanna say it made sense, then it would be setting very dangerous precedent.
---
Wow, you guys really let Trump live rent-free in your heads.
Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
---
Wow, you guys really let Trump live rent-free in your heads.
And you're full of crap that usually sucks his master's dick. You really have no argument to stand on when you've been doing nothing but down playing or making excuses for Trump and his cronies heinous, life-threatening, and inexcusable actions. I guess you're proud to be his pawn, lap dog, and servant of those bitches. Don't pat yourself in the back too much for something many of the other cronies are doing.
K. And the ruling to overturn made no sense. You don't care if its a decision in line with your prejudices.
Yes, how dare people worry about things like millions of women having access to vital health services, or whether or not future Americans will be able to vote.
I'm not going to blindly believe Trump did something heinous until they actually get him on doing something heinous. I went through that with the bullshit RussiaGate that was all lies. If he did something heinous, then get him on that. It can't be too hard if he's as stupid and dumb as you guys make him out to be.
It literally included the main criticism against the original ruling so it did make sense. The original ruling made no sense.
You do know they lied about the amount of women that died from illegal abortions, right? America's democracy is not on the line... it's just fear mongering garbage. The powers at be are perfectly fine with America's current "democracy", no reason to change it.
"Unenumerated rights may be protected or considered constitutional, but only if they have a place in American society that's historical and/or traditional". This is Irrational bollocks, and even you yourself have condemned this line of reasoning when convenient.
A complacency exhibited by plenty of people in pretty much every democracy that then withered into demagoguery.
We are just going in circles... I never said I agreed with every argument but there was an argument that made sense. Whereas in the Roe decision, nothing made sense.
You act like the left isn't a demagoguery as well.
I don't know what you want, the other guy is boring as fuck. ***** just goes to work, takin trains and shit.. "Oooo look at me, Imma give money back to the people". Basic.
Really? Because thus far, literally the only thing you've talked about is privacy, as well as the misconception that it solely protects doctors. So please tell me why the sections on substantive due process, or on how the constitution views 'personhood', make no sense.
There are degrees. They haven't attempted to get a mob to violently overturn the democratic outcome of an election.
Very little is going change regardless of who wins. What's so different from now and say 2016 (post-Obama hope and change)?
If privacy and personhood are so intrinsic in allowing abortions, then why was abortions at 30 weeks illegal? What has changed that it no longer is private (is the woman's bump too big and it's on public display)? Also, if personhood does not extend to the unborn, then again, why the limit on abortions? It makes no sense. Also, I didn't see you complaining when Biden tried to unconstitutionally mandate a vaccine that it was a breach of right to privacy. You essentially pick and choose when people have such rights based on whether you like or don't like something.
The left mainly still thinks Trump was an illegitimate president and colluded with Russia to win the election and those very same people think anyone on the right are idiots for thinking the election was stolen by hacked election machines or whatever. Both believe the same delusion essentially. Hell, news media won't air Trump's speeches because of the "dangerous" lies when they are complicit with airing all the left's lies.
Last edited:
Why don't you read the ruling and find out? Because they do address this question, but not in the way you assumed.
To remind you, i dont give a shit if something is constitutional. I'm with Thomas Paine on this: an unchangeable founding document represents the dead governing the living. I care about good policy.
*based on whether it's beneficial to the individual and/or society, rather than whether or not an old piece of paper written by slavers says so.
Yet one of these beliefs resulted in an effort to overturn the election result by force, and the other didn't. Small wonder I consider one to be more problematic.
How do they address it that makes any sense and that isn't them legislating?
The vaccine mandate wasn't good policy though for numerous reasons. It was an affront on basic rights along with not even being beneficial to society. The problem is you can't predict what will be good and not good, hence things are either inherently good or bad on their own regardless of result.
Highly exaggerated. How is a group actually taking over a part of a city for almost a month and another group not even delaying the presidential certification at all similar? The Capitol rioters couldn't even simply delay something and the BLM protesters occupied part of a city. During BLM, there was the national guard where I was buying fucking groceries. Also, if the left's narrative about Trump Russiagate hammered throughout the election and then Trump ended up winning, it could've resulted in something similar, but the Russiagate narrative happened afterwards. The left was mainly apart of the BLM riots and the right wasn't.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,594
- 3,109
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I'd say this is pretty different:
Texas had over 26K rape-related pregnancies in 16 months after abortion ban, study shows
Texas' abortion law does not offer any exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. The state's total in the 16 months after almost all abortions were outlawed is nearly as many as the next six states combined.
abc13.com
Now that Roe V Wade has been repealed Texas has an abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, so now thousands of women have been forcefully impregnated with their rapist's baby with no recourse.
Roe V Wade was only overturned because Trump was able to stack the Supreme Court, and wouldn't have happened otherwise.
I guess this doesn't count though, since it doesn't affect you personally.
Why am I doing your reading for you?
I don't really give a toss about someone's right to endanger others.
I'm going to ignore your effort to shift the conversation onto BLM, which you and I were not discussing. They attempted to overturn the election outcome by force. The fact they failed doesn't negate the offence; if it did, we wouldn't charge people for attempted murder.
Despite being found liable for attack, Trump claims E. Jean Carroll made 'false accusations' against him
The former president is appealing two civil court losses after he was found liable for sexually abusing and then defaming the writer.
After posting bond on his appeal, Trump resumed social media attack on Carroll. Im surprised no ones talking about the underlying strategy behind Trumps appeal and continued attacked. Its all but certain that hes gambling everything now on returning to office. He has zero chance of winning an appeal so hes delaying it until presidency where he can wield power to make it go away.
Theres an argument for separate threads on these various lawsuits, but I gotta be honest its all kinda blurring together these days.
It's pretty amazing that we talk about granting himself immunity as president when many of these cases violate the Bill of Rights. We've got one case where he's being punished a second time for maintaining his own innocence, we have another of dubiously high penalty, and a third where they prosecuted his legal counsel as co-conspirators. Even if he were never president, and never would be president, and was guilty in every case, the legal systems treatment of Trump are violating the Constitution multiple ways even if he's only a regular guilty citizen.Despite being found liable for attack, Trump claims E. Jean Carroll made 'false accusations' against him
The former president is appealing two civil court losses after he was found liable for sexually abusing and then defaming the writer.www.nbcnews.com
After posting bond on his appeal, Trump resumed social media attack on Carroll. Im surprised no ones talking about the underlying strategy behind Trumps appeal and continued attacked. Its all but certain that hes gambling everything now on returning to office. He has zero chance of winning an appeal so hes delaying it until presidency where he can wield power to make it go away.
Theres an argument for separate threads on these various lawsuits, but I gotta be honest its all kinda blurring together these days.
Confirmed Hes trying to get a general stay on all civil suits until his criminal case(s) complete which unlikely to occur before the election
lawandcrime.com
Trump wants to pause civil lawsuits over Jan. 6 until his criminal case in D.C. is done with
"Defendant should not be required to stipulate to facts that would essentially give a roadmap of the Defendant's defense strategy and positions to the prosecution."
He wasn't punished for maintaining his innocence. He was punished for maintaining his innocence in a manifestly defamatory fashion.
Juries may take into account mitigating factors. However, a man who has an extensive prior history of fraud, showed absolutely zero remorse, was repeatedly dishonest and disrespectful of the court isn't likely to do well in terms of mitigation. He's still got an appeal however, and the appeals court may trim the sum owed if they deem it excessive - hell, they may even overturn the guilty verdict. This is not a problem.
It is very reasonable to prosecute legal counsel where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the legal counsel were co-conspirators in the alleged crime. It is obviously absurd to think that acting as someone's legal counsel is a Constitutionally-protected free pass to behave criminally. A legal counsel asked to do something illegal is expected to refuse (and probably write up clear notes of the incident).
I cannot help but think that the unusually B/C-grade (or in the case of some, F-grade) counsel Trump has for a man of his wealth might have something to do with the fact that a large number of lawyers view him is a liability: not least to themselves.