The difference between legislating from the bench as progressives want, versus letting lawmakers make law…..which is Constitutional. “Law of the land” show an ignorance of what the court is supposed to do….or worse(which is really what it is)……
Kavanaugh:
The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects un- enumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in Amer- ican history and tradition, as the Court today thoroughly explains.1
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre- sentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the
States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult ques- tions of American social and economic policy that the Con- stitution does not address.
Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abor- tion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.
Instead of adhering to the Constitution’s neutrality, the Court in Roe took sides on the issue and unilaterally de- creed that abortion was legal throughout the United States up to the point of viability (about 24 weeks of pregnancy). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of neutrality and restores the people’s authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of dem- ocratic self-government established by the Constitution.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
HokieHam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:58 pm
The difference between legislating from the bench as progressives want, versus letting lawmakers make law…..which is Constitutional. “Law of the land” show an ignorance of what the court is supposed to do….or worse(which is really what it is)……
Kavanaugh:
The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects un- enumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in Amer- ican history and tradition, as the Court today thoroughly explains.1
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre- sentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the
States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult ques- tions of American social and economic policy that the Con- stitution does not address.
Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abor- tion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.
Instead of adhering to the Constitution’s neutrality, the Court in Roe took sides on the issue and unilaterally de- creed that abortion was legal throughout the United States up to the point of viability (about 24 weeks of pregnancy). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of neutrality and restores the people’s authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of dem- ocratic self-government established by the Constitution.
HokieHam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:58 pm
The difference between legislating from the bench as progressives want, versus letting lawmakers make law…..which is Constitutional. “Law of the land” show an ignorance of what the court is supposed to do….or worse(which is really what it is)……
Kavanaugh:
The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects un- enumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in Amer- ican history and tradition, as the Court today thoroughly explains.1
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre- sentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the
States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult ques- tions of American social and economic policy that the Con- stitution does not address.
Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abor- tion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.
Instead of adhering to the Constitution’s neutrality, the Court in Roe took sides on the issue and unilaterally de- creed that abortion was legal throughout the United States up to the point of viability (about 24 weeks of pregnancy). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of neutrality and restores the people’s authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of dem- ocratic self-government established by the Constitution.
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Nah, it's time to stop making babies you can't take care of. Birth control is cheap and easy to obtain and use.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Nah, it's time to stop making babies you can't take care of. Birth control is cheap and easy to obtain and use.
I agree with this. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have a child. I don't think the number of ppl with kids that they can't afford is caused by lack of birth control. Some of it, sure. But I think it's more just ppl wanting to have children regardless of whether they can support them.
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Nah, it's time to stop making babies you can't take care of. Birth control is cheap and easy to obtain and use.
I agree with this. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have a child. I don't think the number of ppl with kids that they can't afford is caused by lack of birth control. Some of it, sure. But I think it's more just ppl wanting to have children regardless of whether they can support them.
Government policies cause that…….have all the kids you want…….a check will be in the mail. It’s what has destroyed the black family.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
Yeah because nothing screams “small government” like monitoring travel and god knows what else to prosecute citizens who cross state lines to have an abortion.
I’m not pro/anti abortion, but the hypocrisy here is extreme.
HokieHam wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:54 pmGovernment policies cause that…….have all the kids you want…….a check will be in the mail. It’s what has destroyed the black family.
Back when we were running our stores and oil company we were in the SNAP program and accepted EBT.
We had several customers on the program and they could tell you to the penny how much a new baby would bring to the family. Most disturbing of all is the encouraging their daughters to have babies as soon as possible because ka-ching.
It is not at all unusual to see 13/14 year old girls walking around here ready to drop a baby at any time.
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
Yeah because nothing screams “small government” like monitoring travel and god knows what else to prosecute citizens who cross state lines to have an abortion.
I’m not pro/anti abortion, but the hypocrisy here is extreme.
I’m not for that fatman…….and Kavanaugh warned against it.
There is no hypocrisy……it’s now a state’s rights issue, as it should have been all along.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
HokieHam wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:54 pmGovernment policies cause that…….have all the kids you want…….a check will be in the mail. It’s what has destroyed the black family.
Back when we were running our stores and oil company we were in the SNAP program and accepted EBT.
We had several customers on the program and they could tell you to the penny how much a new baby would bring to the family. Most disturbing of all is the encouraging their daughters to have babies as soon as possible because ka-ching.
It is not at all unusual to see 13/14 year old girls walking around here ready to drop a baby at any time.
Crazy……..but given what these tools want, it’s expected.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
Yeah because nothing screams “small government” like monitoring travel and god knows what else to prosecute citizens who cross state lines to have an abortion.
I’m not pro/anti abortion, but the hypocrisy here is extreme.
I’m not for that fatman…….and Kavanaugh warned against it.
There is no hypocrisy……it’s now a state’s rights issue, as it should have been all along.
There are mountains of hypocrisy. It’s the same crew pushing for the massive invasions of privacy and population control that could make Xi proud.
I’m not marching for or against roe/wade, it’s a very complex issue. But the same folks pushing for repeal of roe v wade are pushing anti-cross state borders, they are going to monitor people’s mail to limit delivery of abortion pills, these same crew of politicians are talking about limiting contraception. The Christian wing of the GOP is the antithesis of small government, they are the most nanny state of them all. Calling the 2022 era GOP a small government party is an indefensible position.
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
Yeah because nothing screams “small government” like monitoring travel and god knows what else to prosecute citizens who cross state lines to have an abortion.
I’m not pro/anti abortion, but the hypocrisy here is extreme.
I’m not for that fatman…….and Kavanaugh warned against it.
There is no hypocrisy……it’s now a state’s rights issue, as it should have been all along.
There are mountains of hypocrisy. It’s the same crew pushing for the massive invasions of privacy and population control that could make Xi proud.
I’m not marching for or against roe/wade, it’s a very complex issue. But the same folks pushing for repeal of roe v wade are pushing anti-cross state borders, they are going to monitor people’s mail to limit delivery of abortion pills, these same crew of politicians are talking about limiting contraception. The Christian wing of the GOP is the antithesis of small government, they are the most nanny state of them all. Calling the 2022 era GOP a small government party is an indefensible position.
Who is calling them a small government party? LOL……..
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
VisorBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:28 pm
It's now time to greatly increase federal and state assistance to pregnant women; to push for maternity and paternity leave; to work on the hearts and minds of those who would go out of state to pursue an abortion; to care for the poor, who will be most impacted by this (correct) decision.
Now is the time to show the country that this decision is not intended to make a pregnant woman's life worse, but to make her child's life better.
Grow the government!
Yup. You knew it. That’s ALWAYS his solution.
Yeah because nothing screams “small government” like monitoring travel and god knows what else to prosecute citizens who cross state lines to have an abortion.
I’m not pro/anti abortion, but the hypocrisy here is extreme.
I’m not for that fatman…….and Kavanaugh warned against it.
There is no hypocrisy……it’s now a state’s rights issue, as it should have been all along.
There are mountains of hypocrisy. It’s the same crew pushing for the massive invasions of privacy and population control that could make Xi proud.
I’m not marching for or against roe/wade, it’s a very complex issue. But the same folks pushing for repeal of roe v wade are pushing anti-cross state borders, they are going to monitor people’s mail to limit delivery of abortion pills, these same crew of politicians are talking about limiting contraception. The Christian wing of the GOP is the antithesis of small government, they are the most nanny state of them all. Calling the 2022 era GOP a small government party is an indefensible position.
They won't be able to do any of that. No way to monitor the mail. No way to monitor driving across state lines. Scare tactics from the left and sabre rattling from the right.
HokieHam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:58 pm
The difference between legislating from the bench as progressives want, versus letting lawmakers make law…..which is Constitutional. “Law of the land” show an ignorance of what the court is supposed to do….or worse(which is really what it is)……
Kavanaugh:
The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects un- enumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in Amer- ican history and tradition, as the Court today thoroughly explains.1
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre- sentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the
States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult ques- tions of American social and economic policy that the Con- stitution does not address.
Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abor- tion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.
Instead of adhering to the Constitution’s neutrality, the Court in Roe took sides on the issue and unilaterally de- creed that abortion was legal throughout the United States up to the point of viability (about 24 weeks of pregnancy). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of neutrality and restores the people’s authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of dem- ocratic self-government established by the Constitution.
One of the things this whole matter has demonstrated is that leftists know just as much about constitutional law as they do firearms- very little.
