Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    Article 3 violations?  Where?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    How did you jump from the economy to abortions??
    BTW, the title was sorta tongue in cheek towards bafools constant attempts to monopolize the board with anti-republican/conservative/spiritual BS.

    But, if, you want to be offended have at it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    why does bafool relentless "hate" not bother you??

    maybe because ya'll share the hate??
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    Ok, I don't open his posts and if, you have been equally annoyed and expressive then, I stand corrected "you sir, are an oak"

    When the SCOTUS rules is there not opinions that can be deemed as just cause to bring forth new evidence and make arguments and provide reasons and evidence for re-examination?

    If so, can the court not reverse it's ruling on such evidence?

    It seems and correct me if, I am wrong, that you are saying that since the supreme court has ruled any futher challenges are unconstitutional.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : The form of the challenge matters. Viability is the cutoff point, with other things, ie, mandated ultrasound viewing permissible earlier. It's a direct assault on a constitutional right to go outlawing abortions after 20 weeks when 24 weeks is considered viability (absent determinations in independent cases) by doctors. And that's true whether or not you agree with Doe 's reasoning or conclusion. Don't know why, but it gets me when the party that more or less uniformly puts itself out as bigger patriots and constitution-lovers than Democrats picks and chooses which parts/results of the constitution to honor...based on whether it likes them or not.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    So, it angers you when people post and try to tie all together as "Liberals" or progressives" but, you catagorize all who think this way as the Republican party?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    "So if you don't like Supreme Court precedent, you can ignore Article III and do whatever you like to undermine it.
    You can disagree with an opinion, but you must respect Article III and Marbury v. Madison. That is, unless all your patriotic bluster about loving the Constitution is hypocrisy aka bullsh*t."

    You shouldnt be so harsh...on Abraham Lincoln, whose political career skyrocketed , and he was elected President when he not only disagreed with Supreme Court decisions, but came out directly for not obeying the Supreme Court's  precedent. This Supreme Court decision was directly disobeyed  by  the US Congress and by President Lincoln when in office.

    ....or on Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, who ignored 50 years of Supreme Court precedent of  Plessy v Ferguson's  'separate but equal"

    It is beyond absurd for you to say, being against a Supreme Court decision is being "against the Constitution" ....
    Funny how you can say the Constitution must change with modern times, but Roe v Wade's crude trimester approach for abortions cant be changed, based on new scientific evidence and advances in when a fetus may now live outside the womb.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : Mmmm. Well, it's not unheard of, so perhaps you can find one single Democrat who voted for the state laws intended to directly violate Roe. Still, I think "Republicans" is a pretty fair bet here.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Hypocrite?

    Does the republican party consist of only politicians? So, you know what they "intended"?

    It is what it is, whether you see it ot not.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : Politicians, legislators more specifically, are the ones in a position to pass laws, no? They're the ones making the biggest noises about how f*cking patriotic they are. It comes off well to a certain audience, I suppose. Bottom line is those harrumphing hypocrites only love the parts of America or of the Constitution (including how its been interpreted) as far as they agree with it. For better or worse seems to be a part of any normal definition of "love" no? So perhaps it's more accurate to say these Reps are infatuated with the constitution.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    So, in your mind only republicans that have this "selective love" or only get outraged at laws or rulings and characterize them as unconstitutional or judicial activism when it suits their purposes?

    c'mon both parties do it equally just on different issues!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    The President himself wanted to 'overturn' a Supreme Court deciiosn, and asked the Congress to do so, ignoring the role of the courts!

    That is far worse than states passing laws that only arguably violate Roe v Wade....and will be ruled on by the courts...

    In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his State of the Union speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision.  He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. 

    In asking the Congress “to right this wrong” of the ruling by the Court, Obama displayed further ignorance of that about which he was speaking.  The fact is, the case specifically overturned an Act of the Congress that had taken away the long-recognized rights of corporations to express themselves and their shareholders under the First Amendment.  If Congress were to heed the president’s call, it would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional!   

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : In which case I am sure you can quote me the statute that was invalidated, the relevant Supreme Court language, and what Obama said that is supposedly equivalent to a direct challenge to it? I'm not really interested in debunking you, only to find you yet again jumping thread or subject....  Chances are you are yet again oversimplifying somethings, exaggerating the hell out of others, and slipping in a few intentional misrepresentations to try to fit this into "liberal hypocrisy" or some other common theme of Bobbo's Two Minutes Hate....
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Stumped ya, didnt I ?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    Sk8ter starts a typical hate thread with the following typically insulting question "Why do Dems want to hurt the economy?" Well before I even consider reading whatever nonsense rants are contained therein, I have my own question: Why do Republicans want to destroy the constitution? More assaults on Article III, due process, & Roe v. Wade. Yes, yes, I know. You,the readers who are anti-choice, have a quick fix for this. Anything a judge decides that you don't like can be disregarded because the judge was a "liberal activist." Or worse : A socialist progressive. So if you don't like Supreme Court precedent, you can ignore Article III and do whatever you like to undermine it. You can disagree with an opinion, but you must respect Article III and Marbury v. Madison. That is, unless all your patriotic bluster about loving the Constitution is hypocrisy aka bullsh*t. _____________________________________________________________ Opponents of abortion say they expect that discussion of fetal pain — even in the face of scientific criticism — will alter public perception of abortion, and they have made support for the new laws a litmus test for Republicans seeking the presidency. .... Since Nebraska passed the first 20-week limit last year, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and, this month, Alabama have followed. A similar law has advanced in the Iowa legislature, and anti-abortion campaigners have vowed to promote such laws in more states next year. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27abortion.html?_r=1 &hp _________________________________________________________ The point of viability is the constitutional cutoff for the woman's right to make decisions about her body and more particularly the thing gestating within. That's usually 24 weeks. Trying to destroy the constitution based on a lie is fine when you don't disagree with it because as all good Republicans & Conservatives know, women who seek abortion are dirty lustbags who hate fetuses. ______________________________________________________________ Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse , was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild. ¶ Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection. ¶ In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law. ¶ After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed. ¶ Ms. Deaver said she got angry only after the grief had settled. “This should have been a private decision, made between me, my husband and my doctor,” she said in a telephone interview . http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27abortion.html?_r=1&hp#h [] " “The suggestion that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain is inconsistent with the biological evidence,” said Dr. David A. Grimes , a prominent researcher and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. “To suggest that pain can be perceived without a cerebral cortex is also inconsistent with the definition of pain.” "
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Whatdoyouwantnow....thank you ..THANK YOU and a thousand times ..THANK YOU..for sharing this tragic story with us about the unintended consequences of these attempts to undo Roe V Wade. Medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor and the story of Danielle and Robb Deaver plays out in doctor's offices and hospitals every day.People who see "abortion" in black and white terms never take these types of situations into account when they are passing judgement. Unless you have walked a mile in the Deavers' shoes..you can't possibly...possibly know the kind of pain women in this situation endure...the helplessness..the feeling of failure...etc.
    While there may be a percentage of women who make these decisions cavalierly and casually..the reality is most are in the same situation the Deavers were in...and frankly government needs to stay out of it.  It is for these exact situations that I will be for a woman's right to choose..even as I value all life.
    Thank you again....
    Cricket
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]We already know you hate conservatives. Why don't you pack up your shiite and get out of here. Your posts are so pathetic Oh, Mr. Smarty Pants attorney doesn't think that states have rights to pass thier own laws about abortion?? Oh, and equal protection doesn't apply to a US citizen from CT that can't get in-state tuition at UMass while a person with no legal immigration status should be able to?? You seem to think it's OK for states to pass laws about same-sex marriage. Oh, but if your hate-filled pea brain gets a load of a conservative sticking up for their beliefs, well they are just aholes that aren't as smart as you are. And I am sure that a hater wonk like you can come up with some legal decision from the bowels of some law text somewhere to dispute common sense. Hey, I'm just kidding with the insults. Just imitating your response to me when I post anti-liberal rants.
    Posted by Newtster[/QUOTE]
    Newster..Roe V Wade is settled law..and states have no right to pass laws that contradict what is in the constitution. You can't compare states passing gay marriage bills...something that increases the rights of people...with states passing laws that seek to restrict a woman's right to privacy. You should really re-read the original post and decided whether those unintended consequences laid out are really worth all your bluster. The real issue here is all people see this issue only in black and white...and there are a million shades of grey that people like you ignore.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    "Roe V Wade is settled law..and states have no right to pass laws that contradict what is in the constitution"

    You do not understand the role of the Judiciary..it is a co-equal branch of government, not all powerful.
    States have sovereignty, and can pass laws that may--or may not--be later held unconstitutional.

    ObamaCare has been held unconstitutional by more than one federal judge...so do you hold the  Democrats in Congress accountable for passing a law that may well be held unconstitutional?

    Shades of grey, my foot...you are a pro-choice zealot.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from IheartJohn. Show IheartJohn's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    I don't think any guy should be setting rules on what I can or cannot do with my body. Maybe what they should be doing is encouraging men to step up to the plate when they get a woman pregnant.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : Pssst. Article III deals with the powers of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts congress sees fit to create. It's a preemptive jab at anyone who wants to ask me to show them where the Constitution mentions abortion.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Yep.  I've read the constitution before, I am just asking where the violations are.  Tell me more.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]There was a time, Star Trek fans, when 7 of 9, SCOTUS Justices were republican appointees.  A long time.  Absolutely NOTHING happened to Roe.  Roe is going nowhere. And for what its worth, I don't believe dems want to hurt the economy either.  Quite likely a literary device known as hyperbole.
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    I agree, but the liberal stance on Roe v.Wade confuses me.  If the constitution is a living document, couldn't Roe v. Wade become unconstitutional at some point?  I mean, the liberal stance is that we do not need to take into account the principles involved, only the specificity as to the science and the how the current state of law informs us.

    So, If the science has changed, as it may have:  premature babies living at earlier dates, babies being able to feel pain earlier than thought, and the law changes, rights are being recognized for fetuses, such as it is illegal to kill a fetus in the commission of a crime ( it is considered murder), does it not make sense that Roe v. Wade could change as a matter of constitutional insight/legal changes?

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]"Roe V Wade is settled law..and states have no right to pass laws that contradict what is in the constitution" You do not understand the role of the Judiciary..it is a co-equal branch of government, not all powerful. States have sovereignty, and can pass laws that may--or may not--be later held unconstitutional. ObamaCare has been held unconstitutional by more than one federal judge...so do you hold the  Democrats in Congress accountable for passing a law that may well be held unconstitutional? Shades of grey, my foot...you are a pro-choice zealot.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Me..? A Zealot..?? Now that is too funny. Let me ask you this question..where ..in your black or white stand on abortion does situations like the one the Deavers found themselves in..fit in? Why should Mrs. Deaver have been forced to suffer on more moment of pain and anquish in an already painful and devastating experience?  Where is the right of the government to interfere in a medical decision that should have been left to her and her doctor?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]"Roe V Wade is settled law..and states have no right to pass laws that contradict what is in the constitution" You do not understand the role of the Judiciary..it is a co-equal branch of government, not all powerful. States have sovereignty, and can pass laws that may--or may not--be later held unconstitutional. ObamaCare has been held unconstitutional by more than one federal judge...so do you hold the  Democrats in Congress accountable for passing a law that may well be held unconstitutional? Shades of grey, my foot...you are a pro-choice zealot.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Pro-choice zealot?  What could that mean?  A Pro-life zealot wants to force every pregnant person to have a baby.  So a pro-choice zealot would want to force all pregnant people to have an abortion.  Trouble is... there are no such people.  So the zealotry is all yours.  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : The point is the science didn't change. The supporters just made up fake science rejected by the medical community to pass a law directly challenging the viability cutoff. It's like if Alabama passed a law ordering segregated water fountains be re-established; or Mass. passing a law requiring you to chant portions of the Koran publicly on the way to work....all in the interest of "finding out" if the constitutional law has changed. Those are things you disagree with, so you will likely mock the examples. But they're prefectly good. Abortion simply happens to be something you don't like, and that' why you have no problem with laws intended to violate Roe. Principles? A pox on them! This is different than those skirting it by doing things the decisions don't address such as requiring the patient to view ultrasounds, for example.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    You miss the point entirely.  Let me net it out:

    for liberals, the constitution is either in flux or irrelevant.

    For everyone, our understanding of what we call science is changing based on new finds, clarifications, etc.

    so, how do liberals call Roe v. Wade immutable, given their perspective on the constitution and science?

    Seems like it is the liberals who have politicized Roe v. Wade.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    In Response to Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution? : Whatdoyouwantnow....thank you ..THANK YOU and a thousand times ..THANK YOU..for sharing this tragic story with us about the unintended consequences of these attempts to undo Roe V Wade. Medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor and the story of Danielle and Robb Deaver plays out in doctor's offices and hospitals every day.People who see "abortion" in black and white terms never take these types of situations into account when they are passing judgement. Unless you have walked a mile in the Deavers' shoes..you can't possibly...possibly know the kind of pain women in this situation endure...the helplessness..the feeling of failure...etc. While there may be a percentage of women who make these decisions cavalierly and casually..the reality is most are in the same situation the Deavers were in...and frankly government needs to stay out of it.  It is for these exact situations that I will be for a woman's right to choose..even as I value all life. Thank you again.... Cricket
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    Most are in the same situation as the Deavers?  Unlikely.  What the Deavers experienced was a medical necessity, not the optional abortions that most face.

    I don't think any thinking person can read the story of the Deavers and see anything that applies to the broad issue of abortion for convenience.
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Why do Reps want to hurt the constitution?

    Skeeter's point is well taken.
    Roe v Wade itself, and many of the 1960s era liberal judicial decisions such as Miranda (requiring a defendant to be read his rights) and Mapp v Ohio (exclusionary rule, throwing out perfectly good evidence of guilt, and letting criminals go free,  if the police in good faith or otherwise, violate the Fourth Amendment)  REVERSED literally hundreds of years of direct precedent.

    Progressives were fine with radical challenges to the status quo, a "living" Constitution which was changed continuously , based on vague notions of 'evolving standards of decency' . 

    But now these liberal precedents are set in stone; no one can question them, they must exist forever, and if state Legislatures or public opinion try to challenge them, they are "trashing the Constitution".
    New scientific evidence about fetuses must be ignored because a judge in 1973 decided abortions must be legal through the first trimester, and not afterwards... 

    Today's progressives are regressives, they are for the liberal status quo..
     

Share