Sid Miller calls out Abbott's economy killing political theater
- Thread starter bioaggie
- Start date
Mexico needs to do more than being a turnstile at our border. If the Fed isn’t going to do shit but make things worse keep the pressure on. What do we have to lose more than we are already getting fvcked by this liberal POS government
He can’t tell you.
you just need to know that it was critical that we trade mean tweets for this:
If the shelves are bare it will fall back to the guy at the top, the vegetable in chief. Everything else is so far with justification. And this action has gotten a couple of Mexico governors to work with Abbott so it's been good so far.
I also like the bussing of illegals to DC, I don't care if it is 25 a load, that is 25 not here. I say start dumping them in Delaware right in front of Biden's precious beach house he retreats to every weekend. Would love to see hundreds of then standing outside of the wall of that house, the same wall he has built last year while saying walls don't work.
At this point, if you are a democrat you are a blatant idiot.
I also like the bussing of illegals to DC, I don't care if it is 25 a load, that is 25 not here. I say start dumping them in Delaware right in front of Biden's precious beach house he retreats to every weekend. Would love to see hundreds of then standing outside of the wall of that house, the same wall he has built last year while saying walls don't work.
At this point, if you are a democrat you are a blatant idiot.
Last edited:
Stupid republicans just cocked up the midterms with one pending SCOTUS ruling. Amazing. Can disagree with abortion but the score was settled with Roe vs Wade. Now we get to keep all the same dumbass politicians because of how militant the single issue, pro-abortion crowd is.
Not disagreeing that this will energize the left, but the score was not settled with RvW. That is like saying when SCOTUS said slavery was OK the score was settled there. If the decision is a wrong decision then it should never be settled. This going to the states is the right decision. CA and NY can terminate up to past birth now and OK and WV can outlaw it completely. Going to create a lot of tourist abortions.
Not sure where you’re getting your information on CA (not disputing it either just that I can’t find anything that supports your statement).
“As of May 14, 2019, the state prohibited abortions after the fetus was viable, generally some point between week 24 and 26. This period uses a standard defined by the US Supreme Court in 1992, with the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling.”
it was more of a future forecast since the pro side is heading that way. Just saying blue states can go as far left as they want and red can go as far right. It's their right.
Do you believe states should be able to decide if they want to allow same sex or interracial marriage? Is that their right?
In marriage you have set parties and the parties are defined. In abortion, the party most affected can't even be decided when it's viable. This country was supposed to function like 13 individual states with laws not necessarily mimicking the next and that is where abortion is heading. Defense and treaties were the only real functions the Federal Government was to overtake. We strayed from that very early and it's gone straight off the rails. The constitution does refer directly to rights based on race and sexual preference has blended even without an amendment. I prefer the government to stay clear of marriage as a topic as much as possible but the 14th protects this for race and I think most justices would take it for Sex preference as well. Abortion had no real constitutional protection, privacy rights is just too broad especially when most the country didn't have it as a viable option when it was decided. Abortion always fell more to the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where I got it from for reference.
Multiple supreme courts believed abortion was also. It’s the same principles Roe was based upon.
There will be laws enacted outlawing gay marriage for sure. Probably not interracial. But same sex will now be challenged.
IF....and I mean If that happens then it won't be even 1/3 of the states that try and the ability to amend the constitution will rectify any issue. The difference between the two arguments is gay marriage doesn't affect anyone other than those marrying. Abortion affects the mother and a zygote/fetus of which had no voice so the dissenting people became the voice. Basic assumption is the fetus probably doesn't want to be terminated.
Half the states will have abortion and half won't. A tourism abortion market will be created. There is still Plan B and the abortion pill that works to 10 weeks. And there are literally dozens of birth control methods. We are a long way from the era depicted in the movie Revolutionary Road.
Not sure why marriage is a government regulated institution period. Makes zero sense.
Your argument about the differences make sense to a lay person. But they don’t effect the fundamental principles at issue. There’s a saying in law that bad facts make bad law. Then you’re stuck with bad law.
I get this is a highly inflammatory topic for a lot of people. The issue I see is we just had the Supreme Court go very political (and frankly Catholic). You may really like this opinion - but the precedent will lead to things you really dislike.
This isn’t about a change of times. It’s calling multiple past decisions fundamentally wrong. Stare decisis be damned.
What happens when it’s the 2nd amendment that’s being challenged under a liberal court and the road map for the Court is do what you want? Precedent be damned….
I get this is a highly inflammatory topic for a lot of people. The issue I see is we just had the Supreme Court go very political (and frankly Catholic). You may really like this opinion - but the precedent will lead to things you really dislike.
This isn’t about a change of times. It’s calling multiple past decisions fundamentally wrong. Stare decisis be damned.
What happens when it’s the 2nd amendment that’s being challenged under a liberal court and the road map for the Court is do what you want? Precedent be damned….
What do you mean by regulated? Recognized? That is an issue so people can receive the benefits of marriage like tax and inheritance.
Only the little thing that ownership is directly in the Constitution (since people owned guns at the time of the formation) and you don't have to wedge it in there and 360m guns in the US and owned by the right and the left. The Federal government makes more an issue out of the 2nd amendment than the normal person does. Not quite apples to apples.
Bad facts do make bad law and the SC is not immune to this. Again remember they once ruled slavery legal and good. Rule of thumb should always be default to the 10th in issues and let states make up their own mind. Federal Government though, on both sides, like to dictate laws that everyone should follow ignoring the differences of the country. NE is not the SE is not the Midwest is not the West Coast. Difference is a good thing sometimes so you can test different methods and come up with better ideas. Cookie cutter everything and that is all you have good or bad.
Sounds like a law that hasn't been reviewed in a long time or McCaskill is full of shit. Either is viable.
Last edited:
So this was my original question. Should states decide if same sex or interracial marriage can exist?
Or are there some things we as a union believe are universal?
Where in the constitution does it discuss abortions? I’m not saying this cause I really have a strong feeling either way in terms of its legality. I’ve got my opinions on it as a medical procedure and it’s viability as a life saving procedure or form of birth control. This likely wouldn’t have been as big of an issue if democrats wouldn’t have insisted on tax payer money paying for abortion clinics existence
And I answered. I don't think it will get to that point because the 14th defends race (and you won't get a majority on the SC that will go against including sexual preference) and all rights within. Even Alito in his decision draft stated that abortion was the issue and nothing else is being considered. A lot of fear mongering trying to rile up dissent by the major news networks.
Stare decisis is a fascinating concept of law that deserves discussion especially as it relates to lower court decisions vs constitutional based decisions.
I’ve heard differing opinions ( which lawyers like doctors will debate till the cows come home) and appreciate y’alls perspective👍
There is no constitutional right to terminate the life of a baby. There is is only a terribly argued and defined opinion from the supreme court 50 years ago. Decisions can be overturned especially the bad ones.
And one more reason interracial marriage won't be overturned.
I would think this is one no vote to overturning it.
Yes
states making more individual decisions might be the only thing that brings any sort of unity back to the country as a whole.
no one in VT wants to abode by policy decided by someone in TX any more than someone in TX / someone in VT.
less fed gov spending programs. States to become more fiscally responsible.
So Texas banning interracial marriage would bring the country together. Interesting take.
Look two posts up and stop with the straw man arguments.
