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.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Article 10 has nothing to do with whether something Congress passes is Constitutional or not.

It's not like it says "the states have veto power on what the Federal government can legislate, cause they have unenumerated powers"

Something does not become Unconstitutional because the states say it infringes on their powers.

Again, you're an idiot.
 
Last edited:
WeAreNDHockey said:
Just like the settled rights of women to choose what happens to their bodies was challenged. And likely overturned. My guess is if Texas makes it illegal for a resident to get an abortion regardless of where that abortion takes place, the same supreme court that is overturning a decision authored by a republican appointee and upheld years later by another republican appointee, it will gleefully uphold any state law that makes abortion illegal for its residents, regardless of where that abortion takes place.

Your gleeful look at all of this like it is oh so amusing is shameful. You Sic, are part of the real problem. I only hope at some point in your life you are faced with an issue as private and serious (and most often gut-wrenching) like a woman who is considering having an abortion, and after some serious soul-searching the only solution that makes any sense for you is deemed illegal and you are unable to do it, no matter where you are in your life. Maybe then you will see how shameful and wrong your attitutes are.
Click to expand...

Correction, Birthing Person

Men can have babies now as well.

Honk
 
The Sicatoka said:
I misspoke...
Click to expand...

This should be on your fucking tombstone someday. And by the way, using the term "several states" to make you sound like you understand the constitution and are some sort of a learned scholar is not working. It actually makes you sound like a fucking do uche bag. Of course I am the bigger idiot here because someone calling you a fucking do uche bag gives you some sort of perverse glee because you think you're owning another lib. But I just can't help it because you are a fucking do uche bag.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
This should be on your fucking tombstone someday. And by the way, using the term "several states" to make you sound like you understand the constitution and are some sort of a learned scholar is not working. It actually makes you sound like a fucking do uche bag. Of course I am the bigger idiot here because someone calling you a fucking do uche bag gives you some sort of perverse glee because you think you're owning another lib. But I just can't help it because you are a fucking do uche bag.
Click to expand...

Your ad hominem attack fails in that it does not refute the point that this matter will now revert to the legislatures (either the Federal or the several States, plus DC).

I believe of the 51 jurisdictions (counting DC), about 15 have codified the procedure, about 15 have codified a ban, and 20 are yet to act.
 
Some right wingers have identified a pro choice former clerk of Breyer as the leak, and a twitter mob has descended upon the woman.

their proof? She’s written pro life briefs and her husband is a journalist
 
ScoobyDoo said:
My faith in the Court is shattered. I am sure that will be for the rest of my short life. And when Stephen Colbert attacks you you know you're way out of the mainstream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJCGAA4VYT8
Click to expand...

Mr. Colbert seems to be conflating the House and the SCOTUS.

The House is "the people's House" and is elected every two years to stay in touch, alignment, up to date, with the desires of the people when legislating. The SCOTUS is to review and ensure said legislation is Constitutional. SCOTUS has no obligation to the wills and whims of the populace, but only to the Constitution.

If you don't like how SCOTUS operates, may I suggest a Constitutional Convention to change the operational directive of SCOTUS.
 
in FL we have rape exception clause I'm curious how that plays out how would you "prove" a rape happened - also most rapists don't get convicted so if they're not convicted do you also not get your abortion?
Click to expand...

Litigating rape exceptions to abortion bans, even where they continue to exist, will impose incredible burdens on women already in difficult circumstances & likely, in many cases, the clock will run out in them, forcing them to carry a pregnancy that results from rape to term.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1521856445737807874
 
What a happily married 13-year-old. Forced to marry the man that had been sexually assaulting me & got me pregnant. Forfeited education, removed from community, isolated, no bodily autonomy, expecting my 2nd child at 14-yr-old. No hope. No way out.#endchildmarriage #akleg #alaska
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Dawnbtyree/status/1513242455537201154

AMARILLO, Texas (KFDA) - Child marriage may seem like a third world problem, but the issue is very much prevalent in the U.S.

The latest data shows over 200,000 minors were reportedly married to an adult between the years 2010 to 2015 in the United States.

In Texas, over 41,000 minors were reportedly married to adult men between the years 2000 to 2017. Among those, 96 percent are girls married to adult men.

In 1985, Dawn Tyree became one of those girls.
Click to expand...

https://www.newschannel10.com/2021/...rried-when-now-advocating-end-child-marriage/
 
The Sicatoka said:
Your ad hominem attack fails in that it does not refute the point that this matter will now revert to the legislatures (either the Federal or the several States, plus DC).

I believe of the 51 jurisdictions (counting DC), about 15 have codified the procedure, about 15 have codified a ban, and 20 are yet to act.
Click to expand...

My ad hominem attack was just that and the point I was making is you are an insufferable d ouche bag. I have been trying for a long time to find a reason to not put you on ignore, because I think it is dangerous to disallow contrary opinions and viewpoints into one's worldview. But for you, I've given up. You are disengenuous, shallow and are the literal example of white privilege and you don't seem interested in the first clue as to why. I feel sorry for the people who are close to you and learn by your examples. I invite you to reciprocate and put me on ignore as well because clearly you have nothing to gain by engaging with me.
 
Drew S. said:
I’m sure most of that is complete bs and is the case of an 18 year old marrying a 17 year old or something like that. True cases of child brides are bad enough without misrepresenting the scope.
Click to expand...

She was wed at 13. I'm sure it's bs to you but not to her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top