What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

unofan said:
Because the liberal women in the South deserve to have their constitutional rights stomped on?

Would you be similarly cavalier if a liberal court did the same thing to your gun rights?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Sic is just standing up for the rights of rapists to pro-create, since undoubtedly many a conservative state would ban abortion in all cases thus setting up a Talibanesque situation where the government forces victims to bear the child of their attacker. :rolleyes: Just so we all understand the true effect of right wing policies here.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Please answer the question: Would the issue fall to the several States?
Click to expand...

If there's no constitutional protection, states would be free to ban it, but so would the federal government. So as with pretty much all legal questions, the answer is, "It depends."

Now, would you be so cavalier if a liberal court signaled it wanted to do the same thing to your gun rights?
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

unofan said:
If there's no constitutional protection, states would be free to ban it, but so would the federal government. So as with pretty much all legal questions, the answer is, "It depends."

Now, would you be so cavalier if a liberal court signaled it wanted to do the same thing to your gun rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not cavalier; I'm pragmatic.

The system would work. Many of the several States would make abortion legal before any SC ruling would dry.

As far as guns, the SC alone could not do that; it would require action of the several States in concert (Article V). Again, the system would work pragmatically.
 
The Sicatoka said:
I'm not cavalier; I'm pragmatic.

The system would work. Many of the several States would make abortion legal before any SC ruling would dry.

As far as guns, the SC alone could not do that; it would require action of the several States in concert (Article V). Again, the system would work pragmatically.
Click to expand...

Way to ignore the part about the federal government being able to ban it. That ban would be nationwide. So no, the system wouldn't work.

Abortion is a constitutional right. A liberal court could kill the 2nd amendment by reinterpreting it based on the well regulated militia clause, just as the right wing members expanded it in Heller.

So you're not being pragmatic, you're dodging the question.

Stop playing concern troll for 5 minutes and answer it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

He’s being quite clear. He’s saying it’s fine for a woman in Mississippi or Alabama to have to travel to the northeast to get an abortion. No worries that’s super likely for those women.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

The Sicatoka said:
And many other states would go the polar opposite. And that's how this Grand Experiment was designed to work.
Click to expand...

So....to be clear, you have no problem with a state forcing its residents to have the children of their rapists as long as that's what the majority of the state votes for?
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

unofan said:
So you're not being pragmatic, you're dodging the question.
Click to expand...

If the law of the land became as you posit, I'd have two choices: comply or be an outlaw. The pragmatist in me would comply with the laws*. And I'd continue to work within the system to turn it to my views.

Can you say the same?


*There are lots of laws I don't like but have to comply to, like Saturday driving I-94 in ND and only being allowed to go 75 MPH when there wasn't another car within 5000 feet of me. Oh for an Autobahn ...
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Rover said:
So....to be clear, you have no problem with a state forcing its residents to have the children of their rapists as long as that's what the majority of the state votes for?
Click to expand...

That's why we have several States. Some may take that narrow view (which I couldn't support personally); other States surely will not.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

The Sicatoka said:
Life gets messy at times. Especially when the stakes are highest.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to muddy the waters. You were attempting to suggest that the better ideas winning out somehow proved your point. It didn't...at all.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FEMA Chief notes many of the deaths post-Hurricane Maria may have been because of spousal abuse the President is not responsible for. <a href="https://t.co/vNvESNbveA">pic.twitter.com/vNvESNbveA</a></p>— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1041357671662841859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I was told by the President they didnt die. Now their husbands beat them to death?
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

unofan said:
The industrial part of the country won the physical war (shocking, I know), but the war of ideas never stopped. And the South won control of your party in the 1970s and hasn't looked back.
Click to expand...

So ... win again.

And not a registered anything so what is this " your party" to which you refer?* I may be bent libertarian conservative, but I ain't and R as I'll probably be voting for Heitkamp (even though she, a UND alumna, Tweeted out support for NDSU recently :mad: )


*In ND there is not even voter registration.
I love the political-live-robo-scripted-calls that start out asking "Are you registered to vote?" ...
"Um, ... no."
"Well you really should ..."
"Um, ... I can't."
"Yes you can."
"Um, not in ND; there's no voter registration."
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

unofan said:
If there's no constitutional protection, states would be free to ban it, but so would the federal government. So as with pretty much all legal questions, the answer is, "It depends."

Now, would you be so cavalier if a liberal court signaled it wanted to do the same thing to your gun rights?
Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade, and the constitutional protections set out in it, have basically been the law of the land for what, nearly a half century? Yes, states and courts have nibbled around the edges of it to see how far those rights go, but the basic rights set forth by the Supreme Court continue to exist.

The Supreme Court has overturned earlier cases, basically reversing themselves. There have been other instances where subsequent Supreme Court decisions haven't explicitly overruled an earlier decision, but effectively did. But can anyone think of an example where the Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to exist for an individual, and then had a subsequent Court say "no, it doesn't?"

Cases enumerating constitutional rights are not overruled by subsequent Supreme Courts. Roe will never be overruled. The edges will continue to be nibbled at, and cases will be decided about who should be notified and what needs to be stated to the patient, but that constitutional right is as solid as if it were written into the document itself. No different than the right to an attorney, etc...
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Handyman said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FEMA Chief notes many of the deaths post-Hurricane Maria may have been because of spousal abuse the President is not responsible for. <a href="https://t.co/vNvESNbveA">pic.twitter.com/vNvESNbveA</a></p>— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1041357671662841859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I was told by the President they didnt die. Now their husbands beat them to death?
Click to expand...

Not even noon Monday and we have a front-runner, FEMA guy, for moron of the week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top