Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[Dana7360]

How so?

If a person is found to be talking about having had an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person is found to be advising a person how to or where to go to have an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives another person a ride in a car to go get an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives a person the money to pay for an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

It violates the 4th amendment right to privacy with our body. The government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our body against our will.

It violates the 4th amendment of privacy with our papers and property.

It violates the 14 amendment of equal justice under the law since the law states that the person who is sued for an abortion and loses the case, has to pay the court costs of the person or entity that sued them but if the person who is sued for an abortion wins that case, the person who sued them doesn't have to pay the court costs of the person they sued.

Only one party can recover their court costs if they win.

That is not equal protection under the law.

 

[Lastamender]

And then turned around and did exactly the opposite three years later.

Which one is illegitimate?

There are two of them, Biden and Harris.

 

[Lastamender]

If a person is found to be talking about having had an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person is found to be advising a person how to or where to go to have an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives another person a ride in a car to go get an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives a person the money to pay for an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

It violates the 4th amendment right to privacy with our body. The government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our body against our will.

It violates the 4th amendment of privacy with our papers and property.

It violates the 14 amendment of equal justice under the law since the law states that the person who is sued for an abortion and loses the case, has to pay the court costs of the person or entity that sued them but if the person who is sued for an abortion wins that case, the person who sued them doesn't have to pay the court costs of the person they sued.

Only one party can recover their court costs if they win.

That is not equal protection under the law.

That is not equal protection under the law.

Neither is Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and McCabe not being held accountable for lying to Congress.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right… so what was your understanding of his message with all that?

When there is divided government with a lame duck president, we'll wait until after
the election.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And then turned around and did exactly the opposite three years later.

Which one is illegitimate?

There was divided government 3 years later?

I think you're confused.

 

[Slade3200]

If a person is found to be talking about having had an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person is found to be advising a person how to or where to go to have an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives another person a ride in a car to go get an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

If a person gives a person the money to pay for an abortion past the 6 week mark, they can be sued.

It violates the 4th amendment right to privacy with our body. The government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our body against our will.

It violates the 4th amendment of privacy with our papers and property.

It violates the 14 amendment of equal justice under the law since the law states that the person who is sued for an abortion and loses the case, has to pay the court costs of the person or entity that sued them but if the person who is sued for an abortion wins that case, the person who sued them doesn't have to pay the court costs of the person they sued.

Only one party can recover their court costs if they win.

That is not equal protection under the law.

Thanks for explaining that…

Sued? That’s strange. If it’s a law then why not arrested?


I’m not super familiar with current law… if a pregnant woman has a baby that is viable, meaning could be born and survive outside of the womb, is it still legal for a woman to abort? Say at like 9 months??

 

[Slade3200]

When there is divided government with a lame duck president, we'll wait until after
the election.

Why is lame duck a factor? What’s the difference between lame duck and not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is lame duck a factor? What’s the difference between lame duck and not?

Obama wasn't going to be President after January 20th, 2017.

 

[Slade3200]

Obama wasn't going to be President after January 20th, 2017.

Right, I understand what lame duck means I’m asking what that is to do with the SCOTUS nominations. The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about that. So what do you think McConnell was basing his statements on?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Correct.

McConnell’s refusal to confirm President Obama’s appointment ran contrary to the will of the people; an act by a Senate not reflecting the will of the people, a Senate whose composition was determined by a non-democratic process.

Care to address Biden saying in 1992 to do exactly what the Republicans and McConnell did?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, I understand what lame duck means I’m asking what that is to do with the SCOTUS nominations. The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about that. So what do you think McConnell was basing his statements on?

Right, I understand what lame duck means I’m asking what that is to do with the SCOTUS nominations.

You didn't understand what he said.

The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about that.

What does it say about the Supreme Court?

So what do you think McConnell was basing his statements on?

30+ years of Dems being assholes when it came to court nominations.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Right, I understand what lame duck means I’m asking what that is to do with the SCOTUS nominations.

You didn't understand what he said.

The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about that.

What does it say about the Supreme Court?

So what do you think McConnell was basing his statements on?

30+ years of Dems being assholes when it came to court nominations.

Or just doing exactly what Biden said to do in 1992.

 

[Slade3200]

Right, I understand what lame duck means I’m asking what that is to do with the SCOTUS nominations.

You didn't understand what he said.

The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about that.

What does it say about the Supreme Court?

So what do you think McConnell was basing his statements on?

30+ years of Dems being assholes when it came to court nominations.

Dodge dodge dodge. Thanks for playing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dodge dodge dodge. Thanks for playing

I'd never dodge when it comes to Dem assholes.

 

[Slade3200]

I'd never dodge when it comes to Dem assholes.

Well you just did 3 times

 

[Crepitus]

There are two of them, Biden and Harris.

When did Biden and Harris join the supreme court?

You're even dumber than usual today.

 

[Crepitus]

There was divided government 3 years later?

I think you're confused.

Lame excuses don't cut it. Pick one.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

No it has not. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration policy. They are now denying that right to Biden because he apparently is a Democrat.

Hey leftists kook. 4 SC jurists vote 99% lockstep. It’s the so called “conservative” jurists ( because they were appointed by republicans) that have the common sense and judicial president to vote either way. This is a fact and has been for over 40 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well you just did 3 times

You asked what he said. I showed you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lame excuses don't cut it. Pick one.

What excuse?