Soooo, in your opinion, gay marriage, abortion, & govt healthcare is the morally correct direction for this country?
I don't know if you're a religious guy but if so, your Bible is whole lot different than mine
Justice Kennedy Retiring
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
I don't know if you're a religious guy but if so, your Bible is whole lot different than mine
So to understand you, you are only in favor of abortions in the first 3 weeks of pregnancy? I might could get behind a law like that.
I don’t know where you draw the line, but all I know is when I saw the heart flutter and heard the beat at the eight week ultrasound, that was my child and I was his father.
I just hate the hypocrisy. On both sides. Could any of them be any more transparent? Wish he had had the balls to just come out and say he was going to block any democratic appointed justice rather than the “not in an election year” bullshit. Honestly the election results probably would have been the same.
You are correct, next 12/18 months when we have mini 2007 crisis most of those places will be gone. The next one wont be as bad as 07/08 but it will be noticeable. The same mistakes, especially in real estate lending, that were made pre 2007 that lead to the crash are long forgotten and are being repeated. So Cal will lead the way down the hill again.
Last edited:
I believe that is the morally correct direction for our country.
Who cares what the Bible says? The constitution specifically forbids justices from basing their rulings on religious teachings.
I’m not a religious person. I don’t concern myself with money scams designed thousands of years ago.
Absolutely. Late term abortions are sickening. And trust me, I don’t think anyone should be sitting a month and a half pregnant and just quit. Abortion is a big decision, but with the timeline of fetal development, it needs to be a pretty quick decision. JMO. Make em legal for the first few weeks. Either decide or live with it.
Well, that settles it. Snake eggs are snakes.
Although I think using abortion as a form of birth control is abhorent, a limit of the first 4 weeks or if the mothers health is in jeopardy would be much more palatable for most.
I think Thomas will definitely retire during his term. Then you have the possibility of Ginsburg and Breyer. They will hold out as long as they can though.
The fact you’re more concerned about party victories and “melting snowflakes” than societal progression is a testament to your immense density
Except that many women don't realize they are pregnant until the 4-6 week mark, making it not so perfect. Such a complicated issue. I feel like women should be allowed to make their own decision, within reason. Some limits are certainly needed.
Last edited:
But they are essentially spending bills. There's no general constitutional basis to strike down such laws. From my understanding his platform is what I noted earlier as well as expanded spending on higher education ("free" college) and other things like criminal justice reform. I'm not aware of anything that's patently unconstitutional, socialist or otherwise.
Could you point to what specifically you're talking about?
Pregnancy tests can determine it much earlier. Use a condom. If you have reason to worry, get tested. That’s how I’ve done it
They had a choice and so did the dude when they decided to play hide the pickle. There is always plan B the next morning. Its not like it was years ago, you can pick up a plan B at any pharmacy without prescription. Its really not that hard.
I agree, its like anything else, decisions have consequences and you have to live with them.
Too bad taking plan B too many times (as in, more than 3 times) can cause a lot of fertility problems. And too bad it’s $50. Nothing wrong at all with early abortions.
I mean, if we're gonna get technical here, they have no say in the matter of being born either. If my point sounds ridiculous that's because it is, as was yours.
The unborn victims of violent crimes law that was passed in 2004 would disagree with you. A person can be prosecuted for killing an unborn child in the commission of a crime. The law specifically states that it applies to an unborn child at any stage of development. Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide in 2003 when he killed his wife and their unborn child. So in my book if you can be charged with double murder for killing a mother and her unborn child, then willfully killing an unborn child at any stage of development is indeed murder.
I wouldn't mind if it was subsidized, make it like the $4 generics.
And if you have to take plan B so much it causes you fertility problems its probably best you dont procreate. You have a demonstrated proclivity for making poor decisions.
Ok then. Murdering unborn children sounds backwards to me whether they have a say in it or not.
How far along was the wife? More than 4 weeks?
So what should people do? Abstinence doesn’t work in practicality, only in theory. Then you have to provide contraception, which should be a right IMO. Teen pregnancy was lowest in this country when women had great access to abortion services and more importantly, contraception. We need to move to preventative medicine anyway, and contraception would be a great start.
By that logic none of trumps policies would have made it to the Supreme Court. It’s not about if it is or isn’t constitutional. It’s about if the judges think it’s not, and 6-3 will. Travel ban was voted 5-4 and it’s a constitutionally allowed presidential power... and 4 votes no.
The Supreme Court rules based on policy they agree with, not what the constitution says.
Condoms are free at the health department and birth control is damn near free. Heck give women a one time IUD for free, would gladly spend tax dollars on that. I dont disagree that abstinence doesn't work in practicality for most.
They rule based on law and precedent.
That being said the travel ban being 5-4 makes me question my previous statement.
IMO, on the surface, that should have been 9-0, but I freely admit I haven't had time to read the decision in full.
I have no issue with the travel ban from those countries on that list.
Sounds like we agree more than we might’ve thought. I never knew that condoms were free at the health department. That should be publicized more
That’s the problem. There should never be split votes lol. A conservative leaning crew will make it hell on future liberals. Not the Clintons, this resistance crap that would turn USA into Venezuela.
2 things for you Hondo
1) unwanted pregnancy - this isn't 1959, birth control pill, morning after pill, sub-dermal birth control, IUD, diaphragm, use of condoms, Male birth control pill, etc, there are more ways to avoid pregnancy than at any time in the history of man-kind. I would ascert that in today's age an unexpected pregnancy is the result of negligence bordering on the criminal (if not utter stupidity).
2) Are you not able to imagine countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morrocco, Sudan, Libya, etc. I think your imagination is rather limited
I didn’t know all of those methods were 100% effective.
Those do sound like awesome countries to live in. Let’s make our women’s health laws like theirs!
I can see on certain issues how the law can be interpreted in slightly different manners and I can also see how the facts presented in a case can effect different justices and tier opinion, i.e. a case not being strong enoung in ones opinion even if the they agree on the legal precedent.
But the travel ban opinion was a bad look for the SC as a whole, IMO.
Again before anyone jumps in, no I havent read the opinion in full, but at a cusory glance of the facts it should have easily been 9-0. Im interested to read the dissenting opinion. I saw the highlights and Ginsburg and Sotomayer allegedly based their dissent on tweets and statements made before Trump was even elected becuase the phrase "Muslim Ban" was purportedly used. There are 50 predominantly muslim countries in the world and over 1 billion adherents so I think delaying immigration for people from 5 (as it now stands) countries, doesn't entirely exclude Muslims from enter the US. Sotomayer got her feelings involved.
Quite the jaded view of the Court, and one that I don't think is accurate based on having read a considerable amount of constitutional law. It's not how the Roberts Court has operated, read King v. Burwell for example. It's also not how commerce clause as well as tax and spend clause jurisprudence has gone since the New Deal.
For the record, I'm not saying the Court isn't often partisan, I'm just saying it's not how you make it out be.
I’m not a fan of hand outs at all, but ensuring the poor have access to all the condoms, birth control and plan B that is humanly possible is in everyone’s best interest.
We may have differing attitudes as to why it's in the best interest of everyone, at least we agree on the solution
I assume we both agree that unwanted children being born to young, likely immature parents without the financial means to provide for them isn’t ideal for anyone.
Latest posts
-
-
**** ⚾ Official TI Clemson Baseball Off-season Discussion Thread- Latest: ClemsonTiger92
-
