Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *


The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]



* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

 
Last edited:

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
2,797
Points
345
Location
USA
Blackmun was a blithering idiot on the principles of the Constitution.

"Logically" a person's Constitutional rights should begin when their fucking life does and not just when the Government or Society can not justify the denial of their basic human rights any longer.

Any judicial nominee worth their salt could knock that fucktarded codswallop softball right out of the park.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,074
Reaction score
1,342
Points
190
" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *


The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]



* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

Roe vs Wade? You're all living in the past. Or yearning to live in a theocracy. Which is it? Both?
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Clown Outfit For Ecclesiastic "

* Equal Protection Birth Requirement Is Definitive *

Blackmun was a blithering idiot on the principles of the Constitution.

"Logically" a person's Constitutional rights should begin when their fucking life does and not just when the Government or Society can not justify the denial of their basic human rights any longer.

Any judicial nominee worth their salt could knock that fucktarded codswallop softball right out of the park.
Your constitutional ignorance is the reason constitutionalism is mocking you .

None has yet to stand before the challenge presented and the only bunt thus far has simply been to pander to democracy by majority opinion from religious zealots as efficacy for its position .
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
2,797
Points
345
Location
USA
" Clown Outfit For Ecclesiastic "

* Equal Protection Birth Requirement Is Definitive *

Blackmun was a blithering idiot on the principles of the Constitution.

"Logically" a person's Constitutional rights should begin when their fucking life does and not just when the Government or Society can not justify the denial of their basic human rights any longer.

Any judicial nominee worth their salt could knock that fucktarded codswallop softball right out of the park.
Your constitutional ignorance is the reason constitutionalism is mocking you .

None has yet to stand before the challenge presented and the only bunt thus far has simply been to pander to democracy by majority opinion from religious zealots as efficacy for its position .

Blackmun is dead and therefore not here to defend his own fucktarded logic anymore.

Were he to be here again, and able to answer our questions, I would embarrass the fuck out of him, publically.

It is completely illogical (and also anti-progressive) to suggest that a human being / person's rights should not begin until the new, already living child lives long enough to develop past an arbitrarily decided point, after which fucktardz like you can not stomach or justify the denial any longer.

Blackmun did not live long enough to see or consider the nation's more than 30 fetal HOMICIDE fucking laws that we now have on the books.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
972
Points
140
The moment one finds chronological order to be clearly irrelevant some idiot invariably grabs a cart to place before a horse.
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" When Flapping Your Lips Is Better Than Accepting The Challenge "

* Limp Dick Challenge *

Blackmun is dead and therefore not here to defend his own fucktarded logic anymore.
Were he to be here again, and able to answer our questions, I would embarrass the fuck out of him, publically.
It is completely illogical (and also anti-progressive) to suggest that a human being / person's rights should not begin until the new, already living child lives long enough to develop past an arbitrarily decided point, after which fucktardz like you can not stomach or justify the denial any longer.
Blackmun did not live long enough to see or consider the nation's more than 30 fetal HOMICIDE fucking laws that we now have on the books.
Answer the op question rather than offering flatulence .
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
2,797
Points
345
Location
USA
" When Flapping Your Lips Is Better Than Accepting The Challenge "

* Limp Dick Challenge *

Blackmun is dead and therefore not here to defend his own fucktarded logic anymore.
Were he to be here again, and able to answer our questions, I would embarrass the fuck out of him, publically.
It is completely illogical (and also anti-progressive) to suggest that a human being / person's rights should not begin until the new, already living child lives long enough to develop past an arbitrarily decided point, after which fucktardz like you can not stomach or justify the denial any longer.
Blackmun did not live long enough to see or consider the nation's more than 30 fetal HOMICIDE fucking laws that we now have on the books.
Answer the op question rather than offering flatulence .
My answer is already there for all to see.

Reading is not your thing. Is it.
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Mocking Shadow Puppets Of A Disingenuous Neophyte "

* Cowardice Of Distraction With Banal Discourse *

My answer is already there for all to see.
An answer to the opening post challenge has not been provided .

* A Mirror Reflecting A Clown Caricature In Complete Outfit *
Reading is not your thing. Is it.
You have read my responses and make such statements as your own pathetic disgrace .

* Retarded *

We are all waiting for your childish retort to satisfy your basal compulsion that a successful triumph of an argument is achieve the last word in tit for tat volly of vacuous content .
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Syntax Construction Adding Undefined Attributes And Objects Implicit In Original Amendment "

* Insight Into Technicalities Of Conjecture *


My answer is already there for all to see.
Reading is not your thing. Is it.
An inference from a transitional signature , that is not part of this discourse , suggests that self infatuated non nomian hypocrites dream of concocting a ruse to amend and extend the definition of a person to include the unborn in title 1 section 8 of us code .

Such an amendment to title 1 section 8 would fail a constitutional challenge based upon us fourteenth amendment that founds the pretexts for this thread to demand an academic answer to the " logically of course " statement from blackmun in roe v wade .

Clearly , a state is comprised of , and is concerned with , its citizens and , by contingency , a minimal requirement for citizenship is birth such that a minimal requirement for equal protection with a citizen is birth ; whence , concomitantly , the inception for a wright to life becomes a state interest upon birth .

The only option for the religious reich to implement its sectarian theocracy of non nomian hypocrisy is to amend us fourteenth amendment .

Title 1 of the United States Code - Wikipedia
§ 8 – "Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant. (See Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.)


* Constitutional Protections From Citizenship At Birth Where State Interests Over Ride Parental Or Medical Prerogative *

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to common worldwide general legal practice, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women's rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights, and in animal rights advocacy.[6]
 
Last edited:
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Ignorant Parroting Of Principle Over Stepping Good Intentions To Implement Bias For A Political Agenda "

* Talking Out Her Candy Ass *

Judge Barrett has demonstrated a steadfast dedication to upholding the Constitution as written, and not legislating from the bench.

With respect to abortion , that same line has been forwarded by the religious reich to ignore wrigths not enumerated in the constitution , including that the 9th amendment precedes the 10th amendment , whereby such idiocy expects that because abortion is not literally declared explicitly as a wright within us constitution then the procedures can be outlawed by states .

The complete idiocy and ulterior intent of the statements is to ignore fundamental basics of logic in us 14th amendment that a state is comprised of citizens , for which its interests lay , and to ignore that an individual becomes a citizen at birth upon which they receive protected wrights , whereby birth is required for equal protection that includes for a wright to life .

Had the court not implemented judicial activism to rule that post viability the standard of parturition was relative and a state interest could begin and could proscribe abortion in the third trimester , the court would have been compelled to rule that abortion could not be outlawed at all .
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
11,641
Points
1,215
" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *


The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]



* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

Is “need not” the same as “must not?”

I think blackman’s statement could just as easily allow the outlawing of abortion on demand
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,658
Reaction score
3,930
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
This monk-eye person seems to use a lot of big words that it doesn't really comprehend.

Prior to Roe v. Wade - for almost 200 years since the beginning of the republic and for hundreds of years before that - abortion was universally considered an abomination. It is even condemned IN THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES. So it is not just religious zealots who condemn this horrific practice. It is people who actually believe in MORALITY, who believe that there is an objective Right and Wrong, irrespective of whether a particular act creates visible harm to some affected person or thing.

It is not knowable when human personhood begins. From the moment of conception, the complete genetic code for the person is fixed and immutable. At 16 weeks there is an observable heartbeat. At 24-26 weeks, the baby is arguably viable.

And yet there is a political party that takes the position that personhood begins at live birth, or even later, depending not he circumstances. This is, in fact, infanticide, and yet it is condoned by Leftists today.

When the U.S. Supreme Court presumed to state that the Constitution resolves this issue of when personhood starts it was the height of "legislation from the bench." Future historians will group RvW alongside the Dred Scott decision and Korematsu vs. US. It was one of the worst decisions in U.S. history, in its logic as well as its odious conclusion.

Ironically, to GO BACK TO Roe v. Wade today would result in a resurgence of the Pussy Hat Brigade because, like it or not, RvW placed the beginning of personhood at the end of the second trimester, and stated that viable babies in the womb deserved Constitutional protection.

So how do you like them apples?

But ACB is not likely to challenge the basic law of abortion, and CJ Roberts wouldn't even countenance such a thing, so we are stuck with some form of legal abortion for the foreseeable future. Perhaps going back to RvW is the best we can hope for.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
16,889
Reaction score
7,442
Points
400
The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .
There is nothing "logical" about the claim of Justice Blackmun.
We can see through ultra sound photos that children are fully human and functioning while in vitro.
Science has proved that. To deny their humanity just makes it easier to deny the humanity of anyone the
state might wish to expunge, ala Stalin.

The ultimate irony and mockery of your values is California refuses to put to death someone like Manson
or Richard Ramirez yet daily hundreds have life taken from them by a state that makes a cruel joke of
their "mercy".
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Word Selection Nuances "

* Incisive Inquiry *

Is “need not” the same as “must not?”
I think blackman’s statement could just as easily allow the outlawing of abortion on demand
Had blackmun ' s statement been " must not " , the conclusion would have been that abortion would be legal in all circumstances .

The blackmun conclusion was that post natural viability a standard of parturition ( live birth ) was relative and state interests could begin in the third trimester .

Federal jurisdiction applied us 9th amendment to secure non enumerated wrights for citizens by deciding that abortion be legal in first and second trimesters , while us 10th amendment was applied for third trimester abortions by deciding that states could allow or outlaw abortion .
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
16,889
Reaction score
7,442
Points
400
This monk-eye person seems to use a lot of big words that it doesn't really comprehend.

Prior to Roe v. Wade - for almost 200 years since the beginning of the republic and for hundreds of years before that - abortion was universally considered an abomination. It is even condemned IN THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES. So it is not just religious zealots who condemn this horrific practice. It is people who actually believe in MORALITY, who believe that there is an objective Right and Wrong, irrespective of whether a particular act creates visible harm to some affected person or thing.
Big multi-syllabic words are often a smoke screen to conceal the little thoughts behind them.

Science has given us a viewpoint never achieved before and we can't pretend anymore the person inside the womb is nothing but a collection of cells.

Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
268
Points
140
" Not All Actions Deemed Vices By States Are Valid "

* Per Son Means Male And Countable By Census *

Ironically, to GO BACK TO Roe v. Wade today would result in a resurgence of the Pussy Hat Brigade because, like it or not, RvW placed the beginning of personhood at the end of the second trimester, and stated that viable babies in the womb deserved Constitutional protection.
So how do you like them apples?
A state would not be determining that a fetus had constitutional protections , because logically of course they do not , rather a state determines when the practice of abortion in the third trimester would be restricted as a vice .

For example , the killing of a dog outside of prescribed methods may result in charges of animal cruelty , largely based upon empathy for suffering ; however , such a restriction as a vice does not mean that dogs have constitutional protections .

The decision of roe v wade directed that abortion was safe in the first trimester and between the doctor and patient , while statutes could be passed for the second trimester to ensure the safety of the procedures , while TRAP laws have been used to abuse the purpose .
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
11,641
Points
1,215
" Word Selection Nuances "

* Incisive Inquiry *

Is “need not” the same as “must not?”
I think blackman’s statement could just as easily allow the outlawing of abortion on demand
Had blackmun ' s statement been " must not " , the conclusion would have been that abortion would be legal in all circumstances .

The blackmun conclusion was that post natural viability a standard of parturition ( live birth ) was relative and state interests could begin in the third trimester .

Federal jurisdiction applied us 9th amendment to secure non enumerated wrights for citizens by deciding that abortion be legal in first and second trimesters , while us 10th amendment was applied for third trimester abortions by deciding that states could allow or outlaw abortion .
The unelected activist federal judges have made a total mess of the abortion issue

they should get out of the abortion business and let the problem revert to the states where it belongs
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
972
Points
140
Interesting. Dogs widely being considered "Man's best friend." Analogously then, fetuses are women hater's best friends.
 
Last edited:

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,259
Reaction score
4,846
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "

* On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *


The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom wrote the majority opinion on roe v wade , ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .


* Deeper Analysis *

The democrat and republican parties are promoting political platforms offering abortion as a statistical indicator for votes .

The republican party is promoting an ascetic platform opposing abortion which purports to maintain pontius scholars and self validated officiates of constitutionalism .

A pretense that affiliates of the republican party have surmised roe v wade decision is inconsistent with us constitution completely ignores those who have surmised that roe v wade decision is consistent with us constitution and not simply by stare decisis .

As such , to legitimize the choice , any candidate for us supreme court must be challenged with the ' logically of course ' statement of blackum from roe v wade decision in addition to being expected to provid a sufficient explanation for its meaning relative with us constitution .

As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]



* Political Party Pandering Public Opinion For A Constitutional Non Issue *

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top