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

OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,606
Reaction score
272
Points
140
" Wishful Thinking Bloviate "

* Simple Tons *

Big multi-syllabic words are often a smoke screen to conceal the little thoughts behind them.
The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

* Self Infatuated Arrogance *
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.
Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .

* Going Nowhere Fast *
Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.
This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,000
Reaction score
973
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 *

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.
So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
4,854
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
" Wishful Thinking Bloviate "

* Simple Tons *

Big multi-syllabic words are often a smoke screen to conceal the little thoughts behind them.
The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .

* Self Infatuated Arrogance *
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.
Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .

* Going Nowhere Fast *
Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.
This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .
You can't even spell it you simple minded numbskull.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
4,854
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.
So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.
You're lost in the delusion of your own self-importance I see. Typical of a small minded mental midget such as yourself.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,000
Reaction score
973
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 *

Demand? Why don't you just step outside and scream at the sky numbskull.
So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.
You're lost in the delusion of your own self-importance I see. Typical of a small minded mental midget such as yourself.
Feel better now?
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
16,987
Reaction score
7,539
Points
400
So you don't think anything should be demanded of those applying for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land? You appear to be the one screaming like an idiot here.
But do you think more should be demanded of Coney Barrett than any others justice?
She's gone through the confirmation process just like all the judges you like, presumably.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
16,987
Reaction score
7,539
Points
400
The argument is direct , there is nothing complicated about it .

A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .
Yes. The argument is extremely simple like a ten cent hot dog covered with an overbearing heap of
verbiage concealing such a small amount of substance.
A state is comprised of citizens and citizens receive constitutionally protected wrights at birth .
This is like the antebellum South where citizens were granted all the rights they had coming to them.
Unfortunately the old Confederacy didn't consider slaves human beings deserving of rights so your argument could easily go back in a time machine to the pre war South and fit in very well.
Is a right to life too much to ask of the sociopathic left? Apparently it is.
Science may be able to relatively established the onset of sentience where by a basis for valid empathy a state can legislate when the killing of a fetus without constitutional protections may be considered a vice .
Horrific syntax.

* Going Nowhere Fast *
Hopefully the addition of Amy Barrett to the court will reinvigorate the pro life movement.
This argument has been held in the face of us supreme court justices , whether directly or indirectly , and assuredly acb has already been directed to this site and will be forced , whether directly or indirectly , to deal with its merits .

The left has its public narrative and is content with it , they do not have the capacity or motivation to articulate this argument , while the right does not want to be abandoned by votes from the religious reich and pander to them hoping to keep their seats .
[/QUOTE]It's a fallacy to think only the very religious want protection for the unborn.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top