Enough!!!

[Votto]

There is no convincing the entire populace that abortion is a Constitutional right. It matters little what 9 Black robes say about the situation, or 17 Black robes, or 133 Black robes, or how ever many Black robes the DNC wants to fill SCOTUS with for them to rule they way they want.

Likewise, there is no convincing the other side that it is not a Constitutional right. No matter what SCOTUS says and does, they will not accept this. The only difference is, the media joins them to say that SCOTUS is now illegitimate simply because it ruled against one of the major pillars of the DNC party. Meanwhile, half the country is still divided.

Thomas Jefferson had a similar problem with this as he argued that SCOTUS was not given the sole authority under the Constitution to decide such things. Sadly, he lost with the Madison vs. Marbury case that essentially have them such authority.

That is why I am delighted that SCOTUS, for the first time in history, has willfully relinquished such power they were never given, by putting the question to individual states, that is, issues that are so controversial, everyone knows that the issue has not been settled, EXCEPT the side who got their way originally with a previous SCOTUS decision.

And as we see in history, when SCOTUS got it wrong, like with the Dred Scott Decision, SCOTUS gets it wrong some times, and all because of political partisanship. We should not have to wait until the other political side can pack the courts to overturn such decisions.. but lucky for us, the Civil War fixed all that.

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

The answer will never be to pack the courts cuz no one will respect their partisan rulings.

 

[night_son]

There is no convincing the entire populace that abortion is a Constitutional right. It matters little what 9 Black robes say about the situation, or 17 Black robes, or 133 Black robes, or how ever many Black robes the DNC wants to fill SCOTUS with for them to rule they way they want.

Likewise, there is no convincing the other side that it is not a Constitutional right. No matter what SCOTUS says and does, they will not accept this. The only difference is, the media joins them to say that SCOTUS is now illegitimate simply because it ruled against one of the major pillars of the DNC party. Meanwhile, half the country is still divided.

Thomas Jefferson had a similar problem with this as he argued that SCOTUS was not given the sole authority under the Constitution to decide such things. Sadly, he lost with the Madison vs. Marbury case that essentially have them such authority.

That is why I am delighted that SCOTUS, for the first time in history, has willfully relinquished such power they were never given, but putting the question to individual states, that is, issues that are so controversial, everyone knows that the issue has not been settled, EXCEPT the side who got their way originally with a previous SCOTUS decision.

And as we see in history, when SCOTUS got it wrong, like with the Dred Scott Decision, SCOTUS gets it wrong some times, and all because of political partisanship. We should not have to wait until the other political side can pack the courts to overturn such decisions.. but lucky for us, the Civil War fixed all that.

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

The answer will never be to pack the courts cuz no one will respect their partisan rulings.

The people of the fifty states will never rest with both eyes closed on the matter of abortion happening or forbidden from happening in bordering or distant states. In the meantime, as tensions grow and hatred between the sides stews, each one of the two mega-commercialized political parties will continue to punish each other's constituents for their political beliefs with new laws that restrict their respective voters most hallowed desires and personal freedoms.

Where does it end?

Texas punishes abortion providers and seekers.

California targets the 2nd Amendment and gun manufacturers.

On and on it goes.

States rights or leaving it up to individual states to decide will never solve these issues.

What people get away with in their own states will never be enough for people in other states who do not agree.

Where does it end?

Living in enraged, hateful sorrow? Chained to irreconcilable differences?

Political assassinations?

Or something much bigger?

 

[Votto]

The people of the fifty states will never rest with both eyes closed on the matter of abortion happening or forbidden from happening in bordering or distant states. In the meantime, as tensions grow and hatred between the sides stews, each one of the two mega-commercialized political parties will continue to punish each other's constituents for their political beliefs with new laws that restrict their respective voters most hallowed desires and personal freedoms.

Where does it end?

Texas punishes abortion providers and seekers.

California targets the 2nd Amendment and gun manufacturers.

On and on it goes.

States rights or leaving it up to individual states to decide will never solve these issues.

What people get away with in their own states will never be enough for people in other states who do not agree.

Where does it end?

Living in enraged, hateful sorrow? Chained to irreconcilable differences?

Political assassinations?

Or something much bigger?

I think that one of the reasons half the nation wants to secede every Presidential election, is because the Executive Branch has so much power now as they decide such things as what doctor we see to which drag queen will teach our children in school. The hope is that as states begin to retake their rightful power given to them by the Constitution, that blue and red states will begin to attend to their own matters the way they see fit and not restrained by the other half of the country they disagree with.

At least, it is some hope.

But my hope wanes with the knowledge that socialism/collectivism does not share power and will never rest until they completely eradicate their political rivals.

 

[night_son]

I think that one of the reasons half the nation wants to secede every Presidential election, is because the Executive Branch has so much power now as they decide such things as what doctor we see to which drag queen will teach our children in school. The hope is that as states begin to retake their rightful power given to them by the Constitution, that blue and red states will begin to attend to their own matters the way they see fit and not restrained by the other half of the country they disagree with.

At least, it is some hope.

Hope is a good thing to opine.

That being said, hope these days springs seldomly.

My thinking on the matter of states deciding their own fate peaceably and in finality runs firstly to those lifelong residents of states where government possessed of diametric political platforms has risen to power. Take Virginia for instance. A majority of rural Virginians, those who have been generational Virginians, have been forced no kneel before political ideologies codified into law they absolutely can never swallow, morally. The same is true for many Pennsylvanians in the state my wife and I currently reside. In Pennsylvania our governor has jumped the shark with moral devolution and woke insanity, and few generational rural or mountain Pennsylvanians can stand it, let alone stand for it.

My point here is this: no matter how well meaning the whole 'return it back to the states to decide' argument might be, millions of good, morally upright Americans will get left behind, will be abandoned on the very lands they've inhabited for many generations, as their states remain or change over to political party domination they cannot accept.

Sure, solutions and remedies do exist for such people—in theory, right? They can just up and move to another state whose governmental policies and morals align more closely with their own, right? Or they can just, you know, become activists and somehow convince their fellow voters to vote in more sane politicians, right?

I personally know many such people who feel deeply betrayed by their recent state governments. Regardless of the pain they're suffering most such people would never consider abandoning their generational homes and lands for many reasons—most of them quite practical and all of them very personal. Pride is a part of it of course. Family history is another. Cost of making such a move plays into it of course. Point is, such folks should not be compelled, by their elected governments, to run for the hills of another state or greener pastures where the grass tastes better.

As for voting in "better" politicians, well—we all know how that goes. A certain political party blatantly controls the media in most all states and voting cycle trends (and influencing them) is a matter of years if not decades.

Hope is good.

Hope is also a game played out over many lifetimes.

 

[bendog]

There is no convincing the entire populace that abortion is a Constitutional right. It matters little what 9 Black robes say about the situation, or 17 Black robes, or 133 Black robes, or how ever many Black robes the DNC wants to fill SCOTUS with for them to rule they way they want.

Likewise, there is no convincing the other side that it is not a Constitutional right. No matter what SCOTUS says and does, they will not accept this. The only difference is, the media joins them to say that SCOTUS is now illegitimate simply because it ruled against one of the major pillars of the DNC party. Meanwhile, half the country is still divided.

Thomas Jefferson had a similar problem with this as he argued that SCOTUS was not given the sole authority under the Constitution to decide such things. Sadly, he lost with the Madison vs. Marbury case that essentially have them such authority.

That is why I am delighted that SCOTUS, for the first time in history, has willfully relinquished such power they were never given, by putting the question to individual states, that is, issues that are so controversial, everyone knows that the issue has not been settled, EXCEPT the side who got their way originally with a previous SCOTUS decision.

And as we see in history, when SCOTUS got it wrong, like with the Dred Scott Decision, SCOTUS gets it wrong some times, and all because of political partisanship. We should not have to wait until the other political side can pack the courts to overturn such decisions.. but lucky for us, the Civil War fixed all that.

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

The answer will never be to pack the courts cuz no one will respect their partisan rulings.70%

Dude, you lost uuugely in opinion. Stick with the elitist pedophile enablers in robes.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Federal government desires to rule the states with an iron fist. Even when blocked by the Constitution or law the Federal government just resorts to threats, punishment and financial extortion to force states to comply with their world view.

 

[Hum Dinger]

There is no convincing the entire populace that abortion is a Constitutional right. It matters little what 9 Black robes say about the situation, or 17 Black robes, or 133 Black robes, or how ever many Black robes the DNC wants to fill SCOTUS with for them to rule they way they want.

Likewise, there is no convincing the other side that it is not a Constitutional right. No matter what SCOTUS says and does, they will not accept this. The only difference is, the media joins them to say that SCOTUS is now illegitimate simply because it ruled against one of the major pillars of the DNC party. Meanwhile, half the country is still divided.

Thomas Jefferson had a similar problem with this as he argued that SCOTUS was not given the sole authority under the Constitution to decide such things. Sadly, he lost with the Madison vs. Marbury case that essentially have them such authority.

That is why I am delighted that SCOTUS, for the first time in history, has willfully relinquished such power they were never given, by putting the question to individual states, that is, issues that are so controversial, everyone knows that the issue has not been settled, EXCEPT the side who got their way originally with a previous SCOTUS decision.

And as we see in history, when SCOTUS got it wrong, like with the Dred Scott Decision, SCOTUS gets it wrong some times, and all because of political partisanship. We should not have to wait until the other political side can pack the courts to overturn such decisions.. but lucky for us, the Civil War fixed all that.

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

The answer will never be to pack the courts cuz no one will respect their partisan rulings.

I agree that access to abortion is not a right. If it were a right it would make medical professionals into slaves.

However, it's clear that the SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe v. Wade are guilty of perjury. They were all very specifically asked whether they'd overturn Roe v. Wade, and they all made it clear that they would not. They blatantly lied to the Senate and to the American people.

How can the Senate decide whether to approve judge's nominations if the judges lie during their confirmation hearings? They should all be impeached and removed.

If these judges thought that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, they should have said so during their hearings. If they didn't get the appointment, then the next and the next Conservative judge should do the same until the Senate would be forced to appoint judges regardless of Roe v. Wade.

That's what a person of integrity would do. That's what they did not do.

 

[night_son]

I agree that access to abortion is not a right. If it were a right it would make medical professionals into slaves.

However, it's clear that the SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe v. Wade are guilty of perjury. They were all very specifically asked whether they'd overturn Roe v. Wade, and they all made it clear that they would not. They blatantly lied to the Senate and to the American people.

How can the Senate decide whether to approve judge's nominations if the judges lie during their confirmation hearings? They should all be impeached and removed.

If these judges thought that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, they should have said so during their hearings. If they didn't get the appointment, then the next and the next Conservative judge should do the same until the Senate would be forced to appoint judges regardless of Roe v. Wade.

That's what a person of integrity would do. That's what they did not do.

IF senators at a Supreme Court justice's appointment/confirmation hearing could demand absolute compliance on all future rulings dealing with a specific issue, there would be no need for a Supreme Court at all, as the senate itself would be dictating all future decisions.

 

[Flash]

There is no convincing the entire populace that abortion is a Constitutional right. It matters little what 9 Black robes say about the situation, or 17 Black robes, or 133 Black robes, or how ever many Black robes the DNC wants to fill SCOTUS with for them to rule they way they want.

Likewise, there is no convincing the other side that it is not a Constitutional right. No matter what SCOTUS says and does, they will not accept this. The only difference is, the media joins them to say that SCOTUS is now illegitimate simply because it ruled against one of the major pillars of the DNC party. Meanwhile, half the country is still divided.

Thomas Jefferson had a similar problem with this as he argued that SCOTUS was not given the sole authority under the Constitution to decide such things. Sadly, he lost with the Madison vs. Marbury case that essentially have them such authority.

That is why I am delighted that SCOTUS, for the first time in history, has willfully relinquished such power they were never given, by putting the question to individual states, that is, issues that are so controversial, everyone knows that the issue has not been settled, EXCEPT the side who got their way originally with a previous SCOTUS decision.

And as we see in history, when SCOTUS got it wrong, like with the Dred Scott Decision, SCOTUS gets it wrong some times, and all because of political partisanship. We should not have to wait until the other political side can pack the courts to overturn such decisions.. but lucky for us, the Civil War fixed all that.

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

The answer will never be to pack the courts cuz no one will respect their partisan rulings.

The argument that a woman had the Constitutional right to kill her child for the purpose of birth control was always flawed.

The Supremes did good correcting that failed interpretation. Bad law should always be corrected.

 

[Votto]

Hope is a good thing to opine.

That being said, hope these days springs seldomly.

My thinking on the matter of states deciding their own fate peaceably and in finality runs firstly to those lifelong residents of states where government possessed of diametric political platforms has risen to power. Take Virginia for instance. A majority of rural Virginians, those who have been generational Virginians, have been forced no kneel before political ideologies codified into law they absolutely can never swallow, morally. The same is true for many Pennsylvanians in the state my wife and I currently reside. In Pennsylvania our governor has jumped the shark with moral devolution and woke insanity, and few generational rural or mountain Pennsylvanians can stand it, let alone stand for it.

My point here is this: no matter how well meaning the whole 'return it back to the states to decide' argument might be, millions of good, morally upright Americans will get left behind, will be abandoned on the very lands they've inhabited for many generations, as their states remain or change over to political party domination they cannot accept.

Sure, solutions and remedies do exist for such people—in theory, right? They can just up and move to another state whose governmental policies and morals align more closely with their own, right? Or they can just, you know, become activists and somehow convince their fellow voters to vote in more sane politicians, right?

I personally know many such people who feel deeply betrayed by their recent state governments. Regardless of the pain they're suffering most such people would never consider abandoning their generational homes and lands for many reasons—most of them quite practical and all of them very personal. Pride is a part of it of course. Family history is another. Cost of making such a move plays into it of course. Point is, such folks should not be compelled, by their elected governments, to run for the hills of another state or greener pastures where the grass tastes better.

As for voting in "better" politicians, well—we all know how that goes. A certain political party blatantly controls the media in most all states and voting cycle trends (and influencing them) is a matter of years if not decades.

Hope is good.

Hope is also a game played out over many lifetimes.

Not arguing against any of that, but I think it preferable to decentralize power as much as possible.

 

[Hum Dinger]

IF senators at a Supreme Court justice's appointment/confirmation hearing could demand absolute compliance on all future rulings dealing with a specific issue, there would be no need for a Supreme Court at all, as the senate itself would be dictating all future decisions.

The Senate is elected by the people. They have an obligation to question SOCTUS nominees, and the nominees have a responsibly to answer honestly.

Of course they're going to question them on future rulings. Do you think they should be asking what they had for breakfast?

If only one SCOTUS judge had changed their opinion on R v. W, it would seem plausible that one judge had valid reasons for changing, but five judges reeks of perjury.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The argument that a woman had the Constitutional right to kill her child for the purpose of birth control was always flawed.

The Supremes did good correcting that failed interpretation. Bad law should always be corrected.

While I agree that R v. W was a flawed decision, and that abortion should be extremely regulated (that's close to illegal, but not quite), if those judges felt that R v. W was flawed they should have said so at their confirmation hearings.

 

[healthmyths]

I think that one of the reasons half the nation wants to secede every Presidential election, is because the Executive Branch has so much power now as they decide such things as what doctor we see to which drag queen will teach our children in school. The hope is that as states begin to retake their rightful power given to them by the Constitution, that blue and red states will begin to attend to their own matters the way they see fit and not restrained by the other half of the country they disagree with.

At least, it is some hope.

But my hope wanes with the knowledge that socialism/collectivism does not share power and will never rest until they completely eradicate their political rivals.

Which party completely bows to the MSM? Which party has the MSM's blessings? Which party in 2016 got 96% of MSM donations and in 2020 90%? FACTS are until the majority of Americans understand the extremely biased MSM FORMS their opinions and that following facts not exaggerations... How many Americans have heard of Jan 6,2021?
Let's do a quick google search: "Jan 6,2021"...
How much damage done by BLM riots...

Death Toll Rises To An Estimated 30 Victims Since ‘Mostly Peaceful Protests’ Began​

Death Toll Rises To An Estimated 30 Victims Since 'Mostly Peaceful Protests' Began

Amid an eruption of violent protests across American cities, a number of deaths were caused by shootings, but a select few were caused by being hit by cars.

thefederalist.com

However, arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history,

George Floyd protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How many deaths in Jan 6,2021? Zero.
How much cost? the attack caused approximately $1.5 million worth of damage to the U.S.

One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol

www.justice.gov

Conclusion is MSM provides more coverage of an incident with NO DEATHS less than $1.5 million now tell me again the biased MSM?

 

[Votto]

I agree that access to abortion is not a right. If it were a right it would make medical professionals into slaves.

However, it's clear that the SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe v. Wade are guilty of perjury. They were all very specifically asked whether they'd overturn Roe v. Wade, and they all made it clear that they would not. They blatantly lied to the Senate and to the American people.

How can the Senate decide whether to approve judge's nominations if the judges lie during their confirmation hearings? They should all be impeached and removed.

If these judges thought that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, they should have said so during their hearings. If they didn't get the appointment, then the next and the next Conservative judge should do the same until the Senate would be forced to appoint judges regardless of Roe v. Wade.

That's what a person of integrity would do. That's what they did not do.

To ask a justice how he or she would rule on a matter that they have not deliberated upon or heard and to know how you would respond is sheer insanity. In fact, using it as a litmus test for serving on the court is an outrage, especially when we are appointing people who don't even know what a woman is.

You realize this, right?

 

[Votto]

While I agree that R v. W was a flawed decision, and that abortion should be extremely regulated (that's close to illegal, but not quite), if those judges felt that R v. W was flawed they should have said so at their confirmation hearings.

Would you like to codify that opinion and make everyone in the country abide by it?

 

[candycorn]

This is why individual states need a voice in such matters, especially with half the nation divided on an issue.

Just like slavery, hey Reb?

 

[Votto]

Just like slavery, hey Reb?

Interesting you should mention that because the issue was, are slaves human like whitey, thus deserving natural rights like whitey?

That is what the whole abortion issue revolves around. Are they human as well?

Don't be too hard on yourself, but democrats are as wrong back then about that question regarding slaves as they are today about the unborn.

Shrug. Some things never change.

 

[candycorn]

Interesting you should mention that because the issue was, are slaves human like whitey, thus deserving natural rights like whitey?

Interesting that you want each state to decide who is human and who isn't.

That is what the whole abortion issue revolves around. Are they human as well?

Nope. Its a fetus. Unless you're comfortable with counting every pregnant woman twice on the census.... Just imagine the millions of more citizens the cities will get and all of the seats the rural red states will lose when the population of NY, LA, Chicago, etc... explode.

 

[Votto]

Interesting that you want each state to decide who is human and who isn't.

Nope. Its a fetus. Unless you're comfortable with counting every pregnant woman twice on the census.... Just imagine the millions of more citizens the cities will get and all of the seats the rural red states will lose when the population of NY, LA, Chicago, etc... explode.

It is important to assess what is a human and who is not, instead of a court decision only focusing on the privacy of a woman, which is why Roe vs. Wade failed


Additionally, this should be a country wide dialogue instead of only 9 black robes.

 

[OKTexas]

While I agree that R v. W was a flawed decision, and that abortion should be extremely regulated (that's close to illegal, but not quite), if those judges felt that R v. W was flawed they should have said so at their confirmation hearings.

Precedents have been overturned about 270 times, tell the class how many nominees have telegraphed they would be willing to do that? Answer, zero. They couldn't forecast what case might come before them that would even make it possible.

.