Trump is currently addressing the March against Women's Reproductive Rights

[buckeye45_73]

Seriously, does anyone believe that Donald Trump gives a shit one way or another about whether a woman can get a legal abortion?

This from a Kermit Gosnell supporter......your idol is a wonderful guy

 

[martybegan]

No they are not. they are merely interpretations of the Constitution. To be part of the document you have to use the amendment process.

A Supreme Court decision is every bit part of the Constitution. They are binding and the supreme law of the land.

They are not a part of the Constitution, unless actually added as an amendment.

They are someone's opinion on the Constitution that is binding only so long as that opinion is maintained by later versions of the same body that created them in the first place.

It's an absolutely necessary function that the SCOTUS have the power of judicial review.

Judicial review doesn't mean their decisions become part of the Constitution. Only the Amendment process can add or subtract things from the document.

And Judicial review doesn't mean making shit up as you go along, which is what was done with Scott, Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Interpretation is what it is.

You want to eliminate the Supreme Court? How would that work?

Where did I ever say that? What I want is a Court that is a strict constructionist and follows it's Constitutional mandate.

 

[Nia88]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously, does anyone believe that Donald Trump gives a shit one way or another about whether a woman can get a legal abortion?

Easiest votes he’ll ever get

You just wave your magic Bible wand at the fundies, and abracadabra, you own them.

Ironic that Clinton and Gore tried that....they didn't get them...hmmmmmmmmmm

The fundies want to hear that you're against abortion, against gays, and for saying Merry Christmas.

 

[martybegan]

That's the same thing you moron.

No, it isn't. The proper term would be "They say that the Constitution says otherwise"

For the Constitution to say it the document would have to be amended and the words "Abortion is a right" or something similar would have to be added.

So the right of an individual to own a gun isn't a constitutional right, it's just a mere interpretation made by unelected judges?

The right to bear arms is stated specifically in the Constitution. Please find me the part of the constitution where killing a human being is listed as a right.

Find me science that says an unborn fetus is a human being.

No, a majority of unelected judges said otherwise.

That's the same thing you moron.

No, it isn't. The proper term would be "They say that the Constitution says otherwise"

For the Constitution to say it the document would have to be amended and the words "Abortion is a right" or something similar would have to be added.

So the right of an individual to own a gun isn't a constitutional right, it's just a mere interpretation made by unelected judges?

The right to bear arms is stated specifically in the Constitution. Please find me the part of the constitution where killing a human being is listed as a right.

Since the Constitution affords NO rights of personhood, citizenship, or any such other relevant condition to fetuses,
the right to terminate a fetus has nothing to do with killing humans as far as the law of the land is concerned.

it says nothing about having the right to terminate one either, and is thus left up to the State legislatures.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, the SCOTUS said otherwise. The right to private should not give one the right to kill another human being


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The Supreme Court and its decisions are part of the Constitution you idiot.

No they are not. they are merely interpretations of the Constitution. To be part of the document you have to use the amendment process.

A Supreme Court decision is every bit part of the Constitution. They are binding and the supreme law of the land.

Wrong, as usual.

Gee, what an argument.

OK, I'll dumb it down for you, SC rulings can be overturned by the courts, constitutional amendments cannot. A ruling does not become part of the constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A Supreme Court decision is every bit part of the Constitution. They are binding and the supreme law of the land.

They are not a part of the Constitution, unless actually added as an amendment.

They are someone's opinion on the Constitution that is binding only so long as that opinion is maintained by later versions of the same body that created them in the first place.

It's an absolutely necessary function that the SCOTUS have the power of judicial review.

Judicial review doesn't mean their decisions become part of the Constitution. Only the Amendment process can add or subtract things from the document.

And Judicial review doesn't mean making shit up as you go along, which is what was done with Scott, Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Interpretation is what it is.

You want to eliminate the Supreme Court? How would that work?

Where did I ever say that? What I want is a Court that is a strict constructionist and follows it's Constitutional mandate.

So why are ranting about 'unelected judges' in a prejorative manner?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

Not this tired and worn out shit again

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

Not this tired and worn out shit again

Well, it is an accurate statement.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court and its decisions are part of the Constitution you idiot.

No they are not. they are merely interpretations of the Constitution. To be part of the document you have to use the amendment process.

A Supreme Court decision is every bit part of the Constitution. They are binding and the supreme law of the land.

Wrong, as usual.

Gee, what an argument.

OK, I'll dumb it down for you, SC rulings can be overturned by the courts, constitutional amendments cannot. A ruling does not become part of the constitution.

Actually the problem is that when you "give" power to the courts to make things up as they go along, you risk them thinking they CAN overturn explicit rights.

Get 5 of 9 progressives on the SC and see what happens to the 2nd amendment.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Seriously, does anyone believe that Donald Trump gives a shit one way or another about whether a woman can get a legal abortion?

Easiest votes he’ll ever get

You just wave your magic Bible wand at the fundies, and abracadabra, you own them.

Ironic that Clinton and Gore tried that....they didn't get them...hmmmmmmmmmm

The fundies want to hear that you're against abortion, against gays, and for saying Merry Christmas.

That's not what you op said.......do you even read your own posts? or were you just too excited to type those talking points?

 

[Leo123]

Whatever he was willing to say to sell the Trump U. con he's certainly willing to say to con the anti-abortionists.

There they go again.....Look you ain't gonna spin your way out of your butt hurt.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Seriously, does anyone believe that Donald Trump gives a shit one way or another about whether a woman can get a legal abortion?

Apparently you do

 

[martybegan]

They are not a part of the Constitution, unless actually added as an amendment.

They are someone's opinion on the Constitution that is binding only so long as that opinion is maintained by later versions of the same body that created them in the first place.

It's an absolutely necessary function that the SCOTUS have the power of judicial review.

Judicial review doesn't mean their decisions become part of the Constitution. Only the Amendment process can add or subtract things from the document.

And Judicial review doesn't mean making shit up as you go along, which is what was done with Scott, Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Interpretation is what it is.

You want to eliminate the Supreme Court? How would that work?

Where did I ever say that? What I want is a Court that is a strict constructionist and follows it's Constitutional mandate.

So why are ranting about 'unelected judges' in a prejorative manner?

Because the current incarnations of the Court have decided they get to legislate, not interpret.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

Not this tired and worn out shit again

Well, it is an accurate statement.

I'm not a republican but we have three adopted children....sit down

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it isn't. The proper term would be "They say that the Constitution says otherwise"

For the Constitution to say it the document would have to be amended and the words "Abortion is a right" or something similar would have to be added.

So the right of an individual to own a gun isn't a constitutional right, it's just a mere interpretation made by unelected judges?

The right to bear arms is stated specifically in the Constitution. Please find me the part of the constitution where killing a human being is listed as a right.

Find me science that says an unborn fetus is a human being.

That's the same thing you moron.

No, it isn't. The proper term would be "They say that the Constitution says otherwise"

For the Constitution to say it the document would have to be amended and the words "Abortion is a right" or something similar would have to be added.

So the right of an individual to own a gun isn't a constitutional right, it's just a mere interpretation made by unelected judges?

The right to bear arms is stated specifically in the Constitution. Please find me the part of the constitution where killing a human being is listed as a right.

Since the Constitution affords NO rights of personhood, citizenship, or any such other relevant condition to fetuses,
the right to terminate a fetus has nothing to do with killing humans as far as the law of the land is concerned.

it says nothing about having the right to terminate one either, and is thus left up to the State legislatures.

No it gives persons the right of privacy. The states ought not be allowed to interfere in a woman's right to the private act of abortion because there is no constitutional protection of what is being aborted.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

Not this tired and worn out shit again

Well, it is an accurate statement.

Not really, people need to be responsible.....it's not hard
Many poor people have kids and didn't have government programs, they made it....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Republicans are marching for life. Meanwhile they still haven't secured CHIP funding.

They care about about a child until they are born.

Not this tired and worn out shit again

Well, it is an accurate statement.

I'm not a republican but we have three adopted children....sit down

How does that change the facts about republicans?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's an absolutely necessary function that the SCOTUS have the power of judicial review.

Judicial review doesn't mean their decisions become part of the Constitution. Only the Amendment process can add or subtract things from the document.

And Judicial review doesn't mean making shit up as you go along, which is what was done with Scott, Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Interpretation is what it is.

You want to eliminate the Supreme Court? How would that work?

Where did I ever say that? What I want is a Court that is a strict constructionist and follows it's Constitutional mandate.

So why are ranting about 'unelected judges' in a prejorative manner?

Because the current incarnations of the Court have decided they get to legislate, not interpret.

Legislating from the bench is a meaningless catch phrase.

 

[TNHarley]

That's the same thing you moron.

No, it isn't. The proper term would be "They say that the Constitution says otherwise"

For the Constitution to say it the document would have to be amended and the words "Abortion is a right" or something similar would have to be added.

So the right of an individual to own a gun isn't a constitutional right, it's just a mere interpretation made by unelected judges?

The right to bear arms is stated specifically in the Constitution. Please find me the part of the constitution where killing a human being is listed as a right.

Find me science that says an unborn fetus is a human being.

What else can it be? Is it a chicken? or is is a penguin? or is is frog? NOPE the only possible answer is that the results of two humans mating is that they created another human.

Science tells us that each kind begets its own.

When i eat my fresh chicken eggs in the morning for breakfast, am i eating eggs or chickens?
Look, i understand the emotion in this, but calling them human beings isnt correct. They dont even meet the requirements for a living organism, much less a human.