Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
True...but the Federal Government is really good at blackmailing the states to do as they are told.The tenth amendment doesn't require compromise.
It means states can do what they want.
What you are saying sounds a like a nationwide abortion ban...or severe restrictions...which I expect is the ultimate goal of the religious zealots that have infiltrated the Republican party.
You might want to review that, it was your boy Ronnie Reagan who did that.When Jimmy Carter wanted a National 55 MPH speed limit... the Federal Government made highway grants available only to states with a 55 MPH speed limit. They all fell in line.
Jimmy Carter's statement urging compliance with the 55 mph speed limit in 1977.... the first year of his presidency. Regan was elected in 1980 and took office January 1981You might want to review that, it was your boy Ronnie Reagan who did that.
Your extremism doesn't help the party. Trump's moderate position is the way to go.I'm one of the "religious nuts"...and fervently anti-abortion.
Everyone outside of the abortion debate calls it a baby.
Only people with an agenda use the word "fetus" to describe what a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb.
Ever heard a pregnant woman say 'the fetus just kicked'?
Or "I have a neonatal appointment to check on my fetus's health".
So, no. You haven't found an ally in your quest to purge the religious with me.
The guy who got Roe v Wade overturned is the moderate?Your extremism doesn't help the party. Trump's moderate position is the way to go.
Do you think that is what the fed should do? Lean on states? How would they lean? Pro or Foe? Would it swing back and forth every time we got a new president?True...but the Federal Government is really good at blackmailing the states to do as they are told.
When Jimmy Carter wanted a National 55 MPH speed limit... the Federal Government made highway grants available only to states with a 55 MPH speed limit. They all fell in line.
From post 13.Can you please quote what it was I posted that "sounds like" that is what I'm saying?
Do you think that is what the fed should do? Lean on states? How would they lean? Pro or Foe? Would it swing back and forth every time we got a new president?
Did you read the rest of that post?From post 13.
"I'm one of the "religious nuts"...and fervently anti-abortion."
I think it's going to be the original compromise...1st trimester.
They'll lean on the Red states to move it up, and the Blue states to move it down.
There will be exceptions ... but with safeguards to keep them from being abused.
Yes.Did you read the rest of that post?
Then you’re retarded and unable to think at all.That funny because I think people who care about the constitution have advocated for Roe to stay the law of the land.
For a good compromise...I think you'd be surprised.Who would lean on red states? Which republican candidate now would lean in red states? What would religious organizations do then? You think they would compromise? Nope. It would destroy Trump's or DeSantis in a heartbeat.
Yes.
Let me couch that a little more nicely than the previous poster.That funny because I think people who care about the constitution have advocated for Roe to stay the law of the land.
Then he’d be wrong.Donald Trump seems to be open to admitting that when a woman is pregnant whatever is in her womb is not always a "baby".
So you’re a pro-abort.As a moderate conservative I believe that this is a good view and Desantis is too much of a conservative.
Unborn human beings are human beings for the whole pregnancy, yes. Does being a “moderate conservative” mean rejecting reason and scientific fact?Do you think a woman has a baby in her womb throughout the whole pregnancy?
Then you’re retarded and unable to think at all.
No it wasn't.Read the Constitution if you can somehow gain a double digit IQ.
Roe was entirely unreasonable and inconsistent with the text - pure judicial activism bullshit.
Only because they seem to find a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution... But there isn't one..... you are welcome to look but there is not a right to abortion in the US constitution...That funny because I think people who care about the constitution have advocated for Roe to stay the law of the land
There was before 50 years of constitutional precedent was changed by an activist court.Only because they seem to find a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution... But there isn't one..... you are welcome to look but there is not a right to abortion in the US constitution...
Laws aren't based on precedent they are based on the US constitution.... if we had a precedent that allowed men to rape women it would still not be legal to do so.....There was before 50 years of constitutional precedent was changed by an activist court.
For real? Lol.Laws aren't based on precedent they are based on the US constitution.... if we had a precedent that allowed men to rape women it would still not be legal to do so.....
Why did RBG intimate the R v W decision should have been left to state legislators?SCOTUS didn't do it because they had too, they did it because that is what the federalist society wanted and republican presidents only pick from a shortlist of judges the federalist society allows.
Wait a minute... precedent you are showing in that link are constitutionally based laws that have passed muster in the court... the case of Roe V Wade was pushed down the throat of the nation without precedent... so it was a wrong that had to be corrected and it was as predicted by legal scholars ever since that day including justice Ginsburg....For real? Lol.
Decisions on laws are about precedent. It provides consistency in there implementation.
precedent
www.law.cornell.edu
"Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts. Some judges have stated that precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge’s personal views."
