Reply With Quote
We shouldn't need SCOTUS if we can just have the latest party in power rewrite it. In the history of the US it's only been changed a few times. That should speak volumes.
Language barrier. Keep practicing mijo.
I meant it's the only time they do it.
We shouldn't need SCOTUS if we can just have the latest party in power rewrite it. In the history of the US it's only been changed a few times. That should speak volumes.
Yeah you're not hurt at all. Simply mentioning it triggered you to challenge another poster to a "who's the most hurt" contest just because of the like button.l like how angry tats liked this post
Start a thread about it and let's see where you and I finish in the hurt rankings
You misunderstood (again). El was thinking I meant "only" as in "only thing" but I meant it as in "only time". But thanks for tryin' to splain it. I guess.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/case...ry?id=86814201
Catherine Glenn Foster, head of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, told Swalwell she didn't think it was.
"If a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was a result of a rape, if a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life then that's not an abortion," Foster told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
"If you live long enough some bad is gonna happen to you."
That doesn't stand for when that bad happens to you you can kill the baby. Killing babies is wrong. And everybody knows it.
Lol you're the one that brought it up. I know who's butthurt and who's not. I know you're ass hurts here way more than mine because of how important forum status is to you.
Just a recommendation to start a thread about it if you're really not sure, that's all, derp.
Yeah, I got you meant "only time" and here you are doubling down on it. It's all or nothing with you in many threads. Again, just another reason you suck at debating, derp.You misunderstood (again). El was thinking I meant "only" as in "only thing" but I meant it as in "only time". But thanks for tryin' to splain it. I guess.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...8837d394199033
Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.
“We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’
different story lady was in the middle of a miscarraige, meaning no baby because that's what a miscarraige is and nothing was done
I would say it's more textualism than originalism, but your point is well taken.Language barrier. Keep practicing mijo.
I meant it's the only time they do it.
Conversely, once a SCOTUS has applied it's review, especially multiple SCOTUS, we shouldn't need a new SCOTUS to come in with original interpretations of it. After all, it's only been changed a few times. That should speak volumes.
You jumped on Koriwhat for pressing the like button and threw down the gauntlet.
I asked for an example of liberals using cons utional originalism and you didn't offer anything.
It's all made up. The concept of the value of a human life is made up, as is the arbitrary point in time when it's a baby vs a fetus, and why one is more important than the other. If you kill fruit on the vine you still kill the fruit, just as if you took it from your refrigerator and trashed it. It's all made up to make humans more comfortable in doing whatever they want to do. Humans love inventing moral reasoning and pretending it's fact.
If you can accept that one minute it's ok to kill the life form but the next minute it's not, then you shouldn't have any issue with the leap in rationality that a 10 year old rape victim stopping pregnancy isn't an abortion. They are only comfort words anyhow.
Of course it's made up and all mental gymnastics. The ultimate goal is to impose their moral values on you. In an ideal world they would love to micromanage every abortion decision, throwing in their morality at it (and religion as well, let's not pretend those things don't go hand in hand with the conservative dinosaurs).
Things like "sanc y of life" and "protection of the unborn" followed by a lengthy word salad of quotes from a book of fiction are just feel good excuses for themselves. They would never be arguments in a rational world.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. This is just your excuse for not having a real opinion on it besides "whatever the libs on Spurstalk.com don't believe."
If you kill fruit on the vine you still kill the fruit, just as if you took it from your refrigerator and trashed it.
You jumped on Koriwhat for pressing the like button and threw down the gauntlet.
"......I asked for an example of liberals using cons utional originalism and you didn't offer anything.
in 1937, 1954, and 1963. In each of these previous turning points, new blood on the Court prompted big changes. Each prior revolution tossed overboard landmark rulings that had once seemed settled precedent, as the new Court condemned the old conclusions as egregious misreadings of cons utional text and history. But all three prior revolutions involved liberal, not conservative, originalism. And in that history lies a way forward for today’s liberal jurists—if they can bring themselves to see it...
https://time.com/6192277/supreme-court-originalism/
Here you go, derp. It's a great read for those with average reading comprehension skills.
Hugo Black
"......
in 1937, 1954, and 1963. In each of these previous turning points, new blood on the Court prompted big changes. Each prior revolution tossed overboard landmark rulings that had once seemed settled precedent, as the new Court condemned the old conclusions as egregious misreadings of cons utional text and history. But all three prior revolutions involved liberal, not conservative, originalism. And in that history lies a way forward for today’s liberal jurists—if they can bring themselves to see it...
https://time.com/6192277/supreme-court-originalism/
Here you go, derp. It's a great read for those with average reading comprehension skills.
Before he became a Senator, Black espoused anti-Catholic views and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, from which he resigned in 1925.[5] In 1937, upon being appointed to the Supreme Court, Black said: "Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time.
Real liberal you got there, probably LGBTQer
She's saying an abortion isn't an abortion for reasons without actually calling it what she thinks it is. Because it was just an abortion
I understand that, but it's just a less polished version of it's a baby/its not a baby. Just a way to make abortion seem less barbaric.
Real L you have here. Sorry for your loss.Hugo Black
Before he became a Senator, Black espoused anti-Catholic views and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, from which he resigned in 1925.[5] In 1937, upon being appointed to the Supreme Court, Black said: "Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time.
Real liberal you got there, probably LGBTQer
it's hard to change, for better and for worse.
it's ridiculous to have indirect election of POTUS, lifetime tenure for one branch of government, patchwork election law and a non-proportional US Senate in 2022.
I think it speaks volumes that we didn't recommend this system for any of the countries we wrote cons utions for after WWIi.
No exception for rape and incest and investing the rapists with parental rights is grooming.
weeks or days until someone dies because they were denied appropriate medical care.
That's a copout.
Sounds like you should be shopping around for a new home.it's ridiculous to have indirect election of POTUS, lifetime tenure for one branch of government, patchwork election law and a non-proportional US Senate in 2022.
The "we" probably knew the rights and freedoms afforded to US citizens would prevent these governments from exercising level of control needed to effective micromanage their population. Liberals have been fighting for years to get rid of our own rights. " the cons ution" should be on the Democratic National Convention website.I think it speaks volumes that we didn't recommend this system for any of the countries we wrote cons utions for after WWIi.
Unlike now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
