Maxine Waters: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them”.

[wdmso]

Again Jim’s more upset at The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them”. Comment

Then he is over


Trump to DOJ Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me’

Classic.

Jim tell me this , So every SCJ since the the 72 decision. All of the SC Justices who came before the current 3 newest were complete idiots and wrongly interpreted the constitution.. ya ok .,, this ruling wasn’t about the law it was about the lord
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again Jim’s more upset at The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them”. Comment

Then he is over


Trump to DOJ Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me’

Classic.

Jim tell me this , So every SCJ since the the 72 decision. All of the SC Justices who came before the current 3 newest were complete idiots and wrongly interpreted the constitution.. ya ok .,, this ruling wasn’t about the law it was about the lord
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. Roe may have been a flawed argument, but it was challenged how many times during Reagan’s term alone? That eventually culminated in Casey.

So basically, the Fox News 5 + Roberts decided this time was different. Of course three of them (maybe more) distinctly said during confirmation that’s Roe was settled law at this point.

Everyone should read Supreme Myth’s by Segal. It predates all the recent stuff by a few years but shows some of the history of the court acting as a political body (on both sides).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Exactly. Roe may have been a flawed argument, but it was challenged how many times during Reagan’s term alone? That eventually culminated in Casey.

So basically, the Fox News 5 + Roberts decided this time was different. Of course three of them (maybe more) distinctly said during confirmation that’s Roe was settled law at this point.

Everyone should read Supreme Myth’s by Segal. It predates all the recent stuff by a few years but shows some of the history of the court acting as a political body (on both sides).

so if a bunch of segregationist judges upheld slavery and segregation a few times, that would
mean you’d say it can
never be overturned?

where’s that in the constitution?

constitution doesn’t provide for abortion, but says pretty clearly a person can’t be denied life without due process.

you’re a scientist. in your opinion, when is it a person? i’m genuinely curious.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if a bunch of segregationist judges upheld slavery and segregation a few times, that would
mean you’d say it can
never be overturned?

where’s that in the constitution?

constitution doesn’t provide for abortion, but says pretty clearly a person can’t be denied life without due process.

you’re a scientist. in your opinion, when is it a person? i’m genuinely curious.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Viability, which obviously changes all the time.
I am not saying this is easy. Put a cap on it, 20 weeks, whatever seems reasonable and don’t remove exceptions for rape/incest/life of mother.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Viability, which obviously changes all the time.
I am not saying this is easy. Put a cap on it, 20 weeks, whatever seems reasonable and don’t remove exceptions for rape/incest/life of mother.

you responded straight up, i respect that. that is sincere, not sarcastic.

i’m a math guy. things need to make sense to me. my issue with picking a point, say 20 weeks, is this…the baby is no different on the last day of the 19th week, than it is on the first day of the 20th week. i think there’s only one spectacular moment, one time when something gets created that didn’t exist before, that’s conception. But that’s my logic, and reasonable
people can disagree.

but we both seem to agree that women can choose to do whatever they want with their own bodies, as long as that choice doesn’t hurt someone else. you and i may disagree a little on what constitutes “someone else”, but we seem to agree on a big chunk of it.

And i’m fine with leaving exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mom. those are, thankfully, rare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device