Nuc
Senior Member
Well I guess after this nobody will want to live in South Dakota. Oh yeah, that's right. Already nobody wants to live there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mr. P said:Wow, yer so smart..Now a few years ago when these people were elected, which ran on overturning ROE or anti-abortion? Zip?..get the point? I doubt it.
This is nothing more than political grandstanding, it's not about representing the people. If it were about representing the people of the state, they would take a state vote, and then proceed. No one with two brain cells to rub together can miss what this is really about.
Mr. P said:Wow, yer so smart..Now a few years ago when these people were elected, which ran on overturning ROE or anti-abortion? Zip?..get the point? I doubt it.
This is nothing more than political grandstanding, it's not about representing the people. If it were about representing the people of the state, they would take a state vote, and then proceed. No one with two brain cells to rub together can miss what this is really about.
What the hell do religious folks have to do with this? Geeeezzzzzz you guys are so unbelievable.dilloduck said:It's about your personal war with religious folks--we all know that. It still doesn't change the fact that South Dakota can do what it wants or is this another right of a state that you think should be taken away?
Mr. P said:What the hell do religious folks have to do with this? Geeeezzzzzz you guys are so unbelievable.
If you and Abbey Abnormal would READ, you would understand States rights are what I support in this thread. Those rights come from the people voting on an issue, NOT politicians promoting there careers in the guise of representation. And Ive never said SD couldnt do what they want. In fact what I'm saying is, SD should BE allowed to do so, let em vote, or are you afraid they may vote the other way?
Actually, they did, in a way. The legistlature is elected by the people. If enough people object to the bill, they can push to get it repealed or have it put up for a voter referendum. If nothing is done, or the bill isn't repealed, the will of the people prevailed in either case. It's clearly a win-win situation.Mr. P said:Wait a minute folks
This goes against what is always promoted here, Let the People decide, are you ignoring that? They (the people) didnt vote on it. Before ya get all excited about it, dont ya think you should know what they think?
Bottom line is This is Legislation by a few that affects many, without a vote; in order to do nothing more than TEST the two new members of the Supreme Court. Is that how you want to see the Country run? NOT ME.
KarlMarx said:Actually, they did, in a way. The legistlature is elected by the people. If enough people object to the bill, they can push to get it repealed or have it put up for a voter referendum. If nothing is done, or the bill isn't repealed, the will of the people prevailed in either case. It's clearly a win-win situation.
And yes, the bill clearly is designed to bring the issue of abortion to the Supreme Court. Still.....33 years ago, the abortionists of this country pulled a fast one on the rest of us... it's time to rectify this national disgrace. First, it's time that a large segment of our population get the same rights as the rest (the unborn). Second it's time that a large segment of population regains their Constitutionally granted right (the voters).
Right.... and when it's Roe vs. Wade it's 1973 it's SCOTUS doing its job.... when it's Gore vs. Bush in 2000, it's Bush stole the election...MissileMan said:The people voted for the legislature and the executive who appointed the judges. They are being paid to interpret the law. It's the hypocrits that are the problem here. In the Schaivo case, there were lots of people hoping that the SCOTUS would override the legislature of Florida. In Roe v. Wade, these same people want the SCOTUS to let the legislature prevail. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they agree with, they're defending the Constitution. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they disagree with, they're judicial activists creating law. Make up your minds already!
MissileMan said:The people voted for the legislature and the executive who appointed the judges. They are being paid to interpret the law. It's the hypocrits that are the problem here. In the Schaivo case, there were lots of people hoping that the SCOTUS would override the legislature of Florida. In Roe v. Wade, these same people want the SCOTUS to let the legislature prevail. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they agree with, they're defending the Constitution. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they disagree with, they're judicial activists creating law. Make up your minds already!
I think they were doing their job in both cases, and agree with both rulings.KarlMarx said:Right.... and when it's Roe vs. Wade it's 1973 it's SCOTUS doing its job.... when it's Gore vs. Bush in 2000, it's Bush stole the election...
...
That's true. Your side just wanted Congress to pass a law, which IMO is worse.Hobbit said:Actually, the legislature and executive branches in Florida tried to intervene, but the judge said they had no grounds. Hm, guess we weren't for SCOTUS overruling the legislature, after all.
dmp said:Killing - absolute wrong.
Mr. P said:That's true. Your side just wanted Congress to pass a law, which IMO is worse.
But not on a individual legal case or state. Sure they pass law, but you know exactly what they were attemping here. It wasn't right and it failed.musicman said:Why? Congress can do that, you know. It's WHAT they do, in fact.
I can understand the confusion, though. We've been watching judges write law for so long...
Mr. P said:But not on a individual legal case or state. Sure they pass law, but you know exactly what they were attemping here. It wasn't right and it failed.
Congress filed suit in the Supreme court? Missed that. Maybe I forgot, it has been awhile.dilloduck said:That's right--it's up to the ACLU to bring suits based on individual legal cases before the Supreme court and try to change the law for everyone.
Mr. P said:Congress filed suit in the Supreme court? Missed that. Maybe I forgot, it has been awhile.
I know that dillo, what are you trying to say?dilloduck said:No--national and local legislatures PASS LAWS that challenge the supreme court to make rulings on thier constitutionality. Things are challenged in different ways.
Mr. P said:I know that dillo, what are you trying to say?