Abortion Duel

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Said nothing about the reason why, just a period society might agree on.

Since Roe vs Wade we had consensus about abortions until the Catholic Supreme Court decided to upend Roe vs Wade and leave it up to the states. Why now must a single Federal judge decide for the whole country? Or for a Forced Birthers court of appeals partially side with this judge, again deciding for the whole country when its now up to the states?

My issue is not just with abortion but activist judges not leaving this up to the states. And we know this is to prevent women from states which ban abortions seeking abortions in other states.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Since Roe vs Wade we had consensus about abortions until the Catholic Supreme Court decided to upend Roe vs Wade and leave it up to the states. Why now must a single Federal judge decide for the whole country? Or for a Forced Birthers court of appeals partially side with this judge, again deciding for the whole country when its now up to the states?

My issue is not just with abortion but activist judges not leaving this up to the states. And we know this is to prevent women from states which ban abortions seeking abortions in other states.

It was a can of worms from the beginning. Even Ginsberg said it was"bad law" . Not that it was a bad idea to give women the choice, just that it was not in the Constitution.

The whole idea of activist judges is something new to me, or maybe I just missed it. They do not make law being the intention I presumed. Just interpret what the legislative branch decides.

Seems like at this point in history the legislative branch does not have the balls to make a decision on much of anything.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

It was a can of worms from the beginning. Even Ginsberg said it was"bad law" . Not that it was a bad idea to give women the choice, just that it was not in the Constitution.

The whole idea of activist judges is something new to me, or maybe I just missed it. They do not make law being the intention I presumed. Just interpret what the legislative branch decides.

Seems like at this point in history the legislative branch does not have the balls to make a decision on much of anything.

"Not in the constitution only started with repeal of R vs W and I believe its a term Allioto's penned. Constitution is interpreted by the SCOTUS, its their job.

Where is the word gun in the constitution.
How does the SCOTUS equate corporations with we the people?
Where is lobbying with unlimited money stated in the constitution other than an expansion of the right to petition?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Even Ginsberg said it was"bad law".

She said no such thing. Educate yourself before posting blatant lies. Are you Whell's brother?

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-...scotus-1702948

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Chicks

She said no such thing. Educate yourself before posting blatant lies. Are you Whell's brother?

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-...scotus-1702948

Newsweek LOL.

You do realize Katie Couric intentionally omitted that part of her responses in their interview because it did not fit the narrative.

Educate yourself, or not.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Newsweek LOL.

You do realize Katie Couric intentionally omitted that part of her responses in their interview because it did not fit the narrative.

Educate yourself, or not.

Who the hell said anything about Katie Couric?

For your education, Justice Ginsburg, whose name you can't even spell correctly, never said it was "bad law". She said it was decided incorrectly, and would be overturned. She was 100% correct. It should have been decided on a stronger basis of law, as it will be, eventually.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Who the hell said anything about Katie Couric?

For your education, Justice Ginsburg, whose name you can't even spell correctly, never said it was "bad law". She said it was decided incorrectly, and would be overturned. She was 100% correct. It should have been decided on a stronger basis of law, as it will be, eventually.

So, decided incorrectly and overturned is something different than bad law.

I see. I don't really give a shit how you spell her name. I did respect her.

[Rajoo]

N.C. Republicans pass 12-week abortion ban, setting up showdown with governor

What is interesting with this bill is the way this was passed and to make matters worse, a House member just switched parties (D-->R) giving the Repubs super majority to override the certain veto by Gov. Roy Cooper (R). Interestingly only about 30% of NC residents are anti abortion, so much for our vaunted democracy.

Many Democrats said they were surprised when the proposal was unveiled at a news conference Tuesday night. Rather than introducing the proposal as a new bill, as is typical, Republicans instead gutted a different piece of legislation and inserted the 46-page abortion bill, allowing them to circumvent the usual committee process, which can take weeks or months.

The text of the bill was so tightly-held that only House and Senate leadership and a handful of other members had a copy in their possession, according to several lawmakers and advocates. If they wanted to review the language, most Republicans had to go to the office of someone who had a copy of the bill — and they were forbidden from making their own copies or taking pictures.

Even within groups of Republicans helping to draft the bill, deliberations were so secret that participants had to turn in their papers after every meeting, one lawmaker said.

This is how MAGA is done if anyone is wondering. Screw you if you don't like it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-abortion-ban/