To what degree is it appropriate for a sitting president to deprecate a SCOTUS decision?

[hadit]

In over 200 years, we have never needed the Second Ammendment

Nancy Pelosi has never needed armed security either. Should she have her access to it removed on those grounds?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

About which they never should have been asked. They're supposed to be independent, not reliable liberal lap dogs.

They were most certainly asked before being nominated. Why not after? If they're supposed to be independent, why don't you complain about them being conservative lap dogs?

 

[hadit]

Biden was being completely honest. This SC is out to overturn all citizens rights. Because the white guys at the Federalist Society want a Christian theocracy.

This law won't stand because it can't. Abortion became a right because women were dying from back alley abortions. Women are now dying because doctors won't help them if they miscarry for fear they'll be attacked for performing abortions.

Hysteria reigns.

 

[hadit]

They were most certainly asked before being nominated. Why not after? If they're supposed to be independent, why don't you complain about them being conservative lap dogs?

I believe the Constitution should be applied as written, and apparently, so do they. Why is that a "conservative" stance? I would think that anyone who values the rule of law instead of mob force would want it that way.

Maybe I just answered my own question.

Here's the thing: democrats, knowing Roe was a bad decision and probably would not stand the test of time, had 50 years to codify what they wanted into federal law, making the point moot. Instead, they hid behind Roe, not wanting to put their signatures on something that could blow up in their faces. Now they face an uphill climb should they try to pass laws preventing states from restricting abortion.

 

[hadit]

Nice try Skippy

It is Republicans who have been attacking the integrity and trust in a Free Press and our voting process

The cornerstones of our Democracy

Calling out the media for obvious bias is "attacking the integrity and trust in a Free Press"? No. We should NOT trust a biased press to give us the whole story.

 

[BackAgain]

Very true

Attacking dishonest reporting by providing credible facts is acceptable
Attacking news you don’t like as “fake news” with no facts is deceptive

False. Attacking false reporting by attaching that label to it is perfectly fine. If your propaganda ministry media can dispense with honesty in its reporting, simply noting it isn’t deceptive. It is merely attaching the proper warning label.

In any event, the “attack” isn’t against our freedom of the press. The complaint is about distorted and bogus reporting.

 

[BS Filter]

So

Maybe because they lied about their intent

The Supreme Court is not above reproach.
They are judged by all Americans and will be judged by History

There is no litmus test that a person must pass in order to be confirmed. It goes both ways. You leftists need to grow up. You love having your day, but whine and tear things up when the right has their day.

 

[BackAgain]

Interesting spin on history

Can you show which “people” refused to ratify the Constitution without a 2nd amendment?

Interesting but ignorant response. Can I correct the voids in your educational history here? Nah. Besides, you’re impervious to facts anyway.

But if you’re actually interested in how and why the people insisted on our Bill of Rights as a condition for their assent to the ratification, you could consult any number of history texts.

Notably, even a piss poor “source” like wiki can point you in the right direction:

The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancockagreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments.[29]The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand juryindictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[30]

Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments.[31]

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[rightwinger]

So

There is no litmus test that a person must pass in order to be confirmed. It goes both ways. You leftists need to grow up. You love having your day, but whine and tear things up when the right has their day.

You would expect a judge to answer honestly. If you believed Roe was unconstitutional, you should say so

You don’t lie and declare Roe to be settled law

You can bet they didn’t say that to Trump

 

[BS Filter]

You would expect a judge to answer honestly. If you believed Roe was unconstitutional, you should say so

You don’t lie and declare Roe to be settled law

You can bet they didn’t say that to Trump

Define what a woman is.

 

[berg80]

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

Abraham Lincoln

With respect to the people's ability to be their own rulers, this is especially salient for those of us who are keenly aware 4 of the 6 right wing justices were chosen by a prez who lost the popular vote.

 

[BS Filter]

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

Abraham Lincoln

So what is Abe referring to in that quote?

 

[berg80]

So what is Abe referring to in that quote?

Look it up, if you already haven't.

 

[BS Filter]

Look it up, if you already haven't.

I did. It's from his first inaugural address. What's your point?

 

[berg80]

I did. It's from his first inaugural address. What's your point?

That doesn't answer the question of what he was referring to. So I'll give it to you. He was talking about the Dred Scott ruling denying blacks US citizenship. Saying that the people have lost their ability to rule themselves if an un-elected tribunal can make such consequential decisions for the "whole people."

 

[berg80]

Many advances towards establishing a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society based on equality have only occurred in the last 50-60 years. Civil rights, voting rights being a few. The right of a woman to control her body being another. This court threatens to undo some of those advances.

 

[BS Filter]

That doesn't answer the question of what he was referring to. So I'll give it to you. He was talking about the Dred Scott ruling denying blacks US citizenship. Saying that the people have lost their ability to rule themselves if an un-elected tribunal can make such consequential decisions for the "whole people."

And I agree with that. What's your point?

 

[berg80]

And I agree with that. What's your point?

That under the circumstances I hope more of this occurs.

“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion,” said the statement signed by 84 prosecutors, a group that included district attorneys and state attorneys general. “But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions. As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”

MSN

 

[BS Filter]

That under the circumstances I hope more of this occurs.

“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion,” said the statement signed by 84 prosecutors, a group that included district attorneys and state attorneys general. “But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions. As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”

MSN

Whatever. The abortion decision puts it on the states to decide. The Federal government has no business being involved in the abortion industry.

 

[berg80]

The Federal government has no business being involved in the abortion industry.

The Federal government has no business being involved in the decisions surrounding having an abortion.