Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ElCid said:

The Republican/Catholic Supreme Court will eventually rule that abortion can be regulated by the states in any manner they see fit.  It is a state, not a federal, area.  Eventually the same for same-sex marriage, labor regulations, ad infinitum.  Guns will be excluded from most types of regulation.

As we have discussed before I'm fine with abortion and SSM being defined at the state-level.    I don't see where the US Constitution says or even implies otherwise.

Yes,  different state laws,  especially for SSM can be problematic;   E.g.  a couple is married but moves to another state and  bam,   they are no longer married.

As for Guns and gun control:  I don't think a more conservative SC is going to make any major decisions in this area:  what laws and restrictions a state can or cannot do have been well covered and I don't see a more conservative SC overturning many prior decisions;  E.g.  saying a state gun law that was found to be constitutional,    is now unconstitutional.

    

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

As we have discussed before I'm fine with abortion and SSM being defined at the state-level.    I don't see where the US Constitution says or even implies otherwise.

Yes,  different state laws,  especially for SSM can be problematic;   E.g.  a couple is married but moves to another state and  bam,   they are no longer married.

As for Guns and gun control:  I don't think a more conservative SC is going to make any major decisions in this area:  what laws and restrictions a state can or cannot do have been well covered and I don't see a more conservative SC overturning many prior decisions;  E.g.  saying a state gun law that was found to be constitutional,    is now unconstitutional.

    

 

 

One of the few positions I have heard of Barrett's is that she does NOT believe that prior decisions cannot be overturned.  

As for SSM, you could use the equal protection clauses or provide for the public welfare clause or the non-discrimination laws.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ElCid said:

One of the few positions I have heard of Barrett's is that she does NOT believe that prior decisions cannot be overturned.  

As for SSM, you could use the equal protection clauses or provide for the public welfare clause or the non-discrimination laws.  

 

Good point about SSM;    I wonder if that has been tested with age-of-consent?   E.g.  say there is a state that allows one to get married at 16.    The person gets married but at age 17 moves to a state where age-of-consent is 18.      Are they still married in their new-state?    If the new-state said "NO" (Not until they are 18 and they have to get married again),   that would appear to be a violation of the equal protection clauses. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Good point about SSM;    I wonder if that has been tested with age-of-consent?   E.g.  say there is a state that allows one to get married at 16.    The person gets married but at age 17 moves to a state where age-of-consent is 18.      Are they still married in their new-state?    If the new-state said "NO" (Not until they are 18 and they have to get married again),   that would appear to be a violation of the equal protection clauses. 

 

They are married.  That comes under the clause that states have to accept what other states say is legal.  Forget which one it is.  Except same sex marriages?   That is part of the legal problem.  If you go to CA and get married and then come back to S.C., why isn't it legal if marriages between opposite sexes are?  Right now they are, but probably not for long.

Guess it is a conflict between religious freedom and individual freedoms.  If the state decides to follow the religious doctrines above individual freedoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

:(

Trump wants it done so he will have a month to figure out how to manipulate the figures to favor keeping or increasing Republican city, county, state and federal positions before the end of his term.  Providing of course, he doesn't seize power.  Also to punish blue states when it comes to distributing money.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 7:57 AM, ElCid said:

This is a contradictory, hypocritical post or at least very confused.  Not surprised though.

Why would abortion be OK for rape and not for other reasons?   While horrendous, technically rape is between two unrelated (95% of cases) people, just as any other pregnancy.  So, if abortion is OK for that, it morally, religiously and legally is OK for all other forms of pregnancy.

I don't know how old/young you are, but governments around the world have reversed some of the worst aspects of pollution (plastic straws) because they forced people to accept them and/or outlawed the products.  Not to mention poisons and myriad other dangerous products.  How can you be against plastic and for plastic straws - one of the most useless devices ever created.

Where is documentation showing most abortions are by low income or immigrants?

What "industrial complex" do abortions feed??????????

For me, the issue on abortions is that it is a "religious" objection and therefore the government should not be in the business of telling women what to do with their bodies.  It is up the woman - period.

I suggest you research Planned Parenthood specifically the video's available I think on youtube or ****ute of people meeting over meals discussing arrangements of how much money they get for harvesting body parts and stem cells by WEIGHT! Planned Parenthood is a racket and for years it was part of the political economic system - It is just as bad as the WAR MACHINE all you older boomer/ex-hippie crowd were about  - so who are the hypocrites - and it is rational and understandable to be opposed to plastic overall and yet accept reality and say okay to plastic straws.

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

-_-

That video was the dumbest thing I have watched in Years - This Senator is an imbecile and terrible orator - The only thing that is corrupt is Molly Jong Fast - especially with a name like that.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cinemartian said:

I suggest you research Planned Parenthood specifically the video's available I think on youtube or ****ute of people meeting over meals discussing arrangements of how much money they get for harvesting body parts and stem cells by WEIGHT! Planned Parenthood is a racket and for years it was part of the political economic system - It is just as bad as the WAR MACHINE all you older boomer/ex-hippie crowd were about  - so who are the hypocrites - and it is rational and understandable to be opposed to plastic overall and yet accept reality and say okay to plastic straws.

Harvesting body parts and stem cells is good business.    I hope they keep up the good work!

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Harvesting body parts and stem cells is good business.    I hope they keep up the good work!

 

It is a good business - you would be - unfortunately, people like you need to understand that you can't live forever and one day you will die no matter how many organ transplants and voodoo stem/dna science -

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cinemartian said:

It is a good business - you would be - unfortunately, people like you need to understand that you can't live forever and one day you will die no matter how many organ transplants and voodoo stem/dna science -

Wow what wonderful insight,,,,     human beings are not immortal. 

But it appears you're implying that these same human beings should NOT advance science to extend life expectancy (as long as one has quality-of-life).     If you get ill are you going to avoid all medical treatment?  

Why not,,, you can't live forever.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Wow what wonderful insight,,,,     human beings are not immortal. 

But it appears you're implying that these same human beings should NOT advance science to extend life expectancy (as long as one has quality-of-life).     If you get ill are you going to avoid all medical treatment?  

Why not,,, you can't live forever.

 

 

Less is more- The older generation(possibly yours) were/are big on medicine - pill for this, treatment for that(all the while taking horrible care of yourselves through the 1950's 60's and 70's!) - I assume you take pills every morning - I don't and don't plan on it either

To me life is hard - I do what I need to do and don't depend on any institution to take care of me - I am grateful and highly skeptical of any system - including government -  If I drink and smoke - its my problem not some ACA fund! I don't want to be a burden on society and neither should YOU!

So to answer your question - If and when I have gotten ill - I ride it out and leave it to nature which get's it's way regardless of doctors and medicine(look at Edward Van Halen) - the greatest doctors do no harm and work with whats in front of them

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cinemartian said:

Less is more- The older generation(possibly yours) were/are big on medicine - pill for this, treatment for that(all the while taking horrible care of yourselves through the 1950's 60's and 70's!) - I assume you take pills every morning - I don't and don't plan on it either

To me life is hard - I do what I need to do and don't depend on any institution to take care of me - I am grateful and highly skeptical of any system - including government -  If I drink and smoke - its my problem not some ACA fund! I don't want to be a burden on society and neither should YOU!

So to answer your question - If and when I have gotten ill - I ride it out and leave it to nature which get's it's way regardless of doctors and medicine(look at Edward Van Halen) - the greatest doctors do no harm and work with whats in front of them

Do you think Trump should not have taken his treatment for the virus seeing as it was made from stem cells from aborted fetuses?

Would it have been better and he himself died instead?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cinemartian said:

Less is more- The older generation(possibly yours) were/are big on medicine - pill for this, treatment for that(all the while taking horrible care of yourselves through the 1950's 60's and 70's!) - I assume you take pills every morning - I don't and don't plan on it either

To me life is hard - I do what I need to do and don't depend on any institution to take care of me - I am grateful and highly skeptical of any system - including government -  If I drink and smoke - its my problem not some ACA fund! I don't want to be a burden on society and neither should YOU!

So to answer your question - If and when I have gotten ill - I ride it out and leave it to nature which get's it's way regardless of doctors and medicine(look at Edward Van Halen) - the greatest doctors do no harm and work with whats in front of them

If you really refuse treatment,  my hat is off to you and your stance towards ACA is valid.

I.e. one shouldn't have to pay into a system they are NOT going to use.   BUT I hope you would agree most uninsured peopl e want to NOT pay into the healthcare system, but when they have health issues expect someone else to PAY for their treatments (typically by going to an E.R. room which has the highest cost).    I call those folks deadbeats  and in fact that would be 70% of my single male friends.    They have money for drugs, booze and cigs but not to pay a health insurance premium.       But you appear to be unique and, really,  if true,  that is praiseworthy.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sheldon is one of the most pathetic losers in their party.

trump will win and barrett will be confirmed which makes little lord percy here about as relevant as that now discreditted NYP story on the bidens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

sheldon is one of the most pathetic losers in their party.

trump will win and barrett will be confirmed which makes little lord percy here about as relevant as that now discreditted NYP story on the bidens.

You mean the discredited NYP story that you and desperate Donald Trump leapt on?

How is his abortion cocktail sitting with you, BTW?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

The Supreme Court has ruled that election officials in Pennsylvania can count absentee ballots received as late as the Friday after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mr6666 said:

:(

I lived in my small deep red town for 30 years and they have always had curbside voting.  They even do it for early voting. 

Unfortunately with a Tweet, there is no substance.  There is nothing to show the Supreme Court's rationale in their decision.  One of their considerations is that elections are controlled by the states and they usually do not interfere unless it is a violation of federal laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...