Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 30, 2022

Ezra Klein: Mitch McConnell gaslit the nation, but he didn't steal any (SCOTUS) seats. Nothing he did was against the rules, which was why Democrats found themselves powerless to stop him. He understood what too many have ignored: America's age of norms is over. This is the age of power.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Supreme Court has changed. In the '50s and '60s, you would have had a hard time inferring a justice's political background from his votes ... In the '90s, Byron White, a Democratic appointee, had a more conservative voting record than all but two of the Republican-appointed justices - Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. John Paul Stevens, an anchor of the court's liberal wing until his retirement in 2010, was appointed by Gerald Ford, a Republican.

Making matters worse is that the Supreme Court has gone from being undemocratic to being anti-democratic. Lifetime appointments are iffy under the best of circumstances, but the vagaries of retirements and deaths have given Republicans a control that makes a mockery of the public will. Five of the court's six Republican justices were appointed by presidents who initially took office after losing the popular vote (and, in the case of George W. Bush, after a direct intercession by five of the court's conservatives in Bush v. Gore). Donald Trump was able to make more appointments in one term than Barack Obama was able to make in two.

Stare decisis makes little sense. The problem is that, without it, the Supreme Court itself makes even less sense. It is just nine costumed political appointees looking for the votes they need to get the outcomes they want. And the further we travel down that road, the more the mystique that sustains the court dissolves.

There is no rule, really, that the Supreme Court must be obeyed as the final word in constitutional interpretation - that, too, is a norm, and one that the court has no power to enforce. If all the Supreme Court is left with are the rules, soon enough there will be no Supreme Court to speak of.

Very well thought out article, worth the read and discussion.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The ONLY reason we are seeing op eds like this is because conservatives have a clear majority on the court.

#2 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 12:24 PM | Reply

Activist judges have a majority.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Nothing he did was against the rules"

With a hat tip to Godwin, the Nazi seizure of power was likewise in accordance with the rules.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Nothing he did was against the rules"

Well ain't that just a load of apologist ---------.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court

#6 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2022-06-30 12:56 PM | Reply

#6

There is nothing that states the Senate MUST give their advice and consent. Obama nominated, McConnell withheld the Senate's advice and consent. He broke the norm, but not a single word of text indicates what he did was unlawful.

Obama could have forced the issue by simply insisting that since the Majority Leader refused to do his job, Merrick Garland would indeed take his seat on the Court and then let the federal courts argue amongst themselves about whether doing so was legal or not, including Mitch's refusal to hold a vote.

Our Founders believed that elected officials would always come together and conduct the nation's business in good faith and in shared interest for America's wellbeing. That ethos no longer exists, and since there were no penalties written into our texts for gumming up the works for strictly political reasons - even though doing so hurts the nation at large - here is where we find ourselves.

And again, the text you point to is not law nor a stated rule with a resultant penalty for failure to follow it, is it?

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 01:17 PM | Reply

"There is nothing that states the Senate MUST give their advice and consent."

That explicitly contradicts the interpretation of the second amendment that McConnell; the criminal in question, puts forth.

So which is it? Does SHALL mean "maybe" or does SHALL mean "must"?

Defending the GOP eating it's cake and having it too is lunacy. Do you really share their cogitative dissonance?

#8 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2022-06-30 01:38 PM | Reply

The ONLY reason we are seeing op eds like this is because conservatives have a clear majority on the court.

#2 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

And are using it to eviscerate long standing ... wait for it ... norms!

It also doesn't help they attained their legislating majority under a POTUS who destroyed every norm he came across as well.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-30 01:47 PM | Reply

The ONLY reason we are seeing op eds like this is because conservatives have a clear majority on the court.

#2 | Posted by BellRinger

The only reason conservatives have a majority on the supreme court is because they stole seats, lied under oath to get appointed, and were placed there by presidents who got fewer votes than their opponents.

Republicans made the supreme court illegitimate. Dont whine that people are noticing.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

#10. No seats were stolen.

None of the justices, including Kagan and Sotomayor lied under oath.

Presidents win elections based on the electoral college. Unless you hate Democracy a POTUS who wins the electoral college enjoys all of the same powers as any other president which includes nominating judges.

So, you are currently batting 0.000. Nice work!

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 03:29 PM | Reply

-So, you are currently batting 0.000. Nice work!

probably close to his actual average when he played....when he was 9

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 03:35 PM | Reply

"None of the justices, including Kagan and Sotomayor lied under oath."

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

#13 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2022-06-30 03:41 PM | Reply

#10. No seats were stolen.

None of the justices, including Kagan and Sotomayor lied under oath.

Presidents win elections based on the electoral college. Unless you hate Democracy a POTUS who wins the electoral college enjoys all of the same powers as any other president which includes nominating judges.

So, you are currently batting 0.000. Nice work!

#11 | Posted by BellRinger

Garland's seat was stolen. Mitch declared a new rule that you can't appoint a SC judge in an election year then erased that rule for trump.

All trump's justices lied under oath, saying that roe was settled and they respected stare decisis.

Name another country where the person with fewer votes wins.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The "Age of Norms" are over?

Oh Dear!

Are we still pretending two dudes can be "married" to each other?

Has the new SC Justice Kwaameesha figured out what a woman is, yet?

#15 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-30 05:04 PM | Reply

Are we still pretending a black man and a white woman can be "married" to each other?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 05:07 PM | Reply

Are we still pretending two dudes can be "married" to each other?

Thousands of marriages say, yes! Two dudes can be married to each other.


#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-30 05:09 PM | Reply

Has the new SC Justice Kwaameesha figured out what a woman is, yet?

Regardless of "what a woman is", you're never getting one.

:(

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-30 05:10 PM | Reply

Are we still pretending two dudes can be "married" to each other?
Thousands of marriages say, yes! Two dudes can be married to each other.
#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Even better! Two dudes can impregnate each other!

Just ask BOAZ.

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-06-30 05:42 PM | Reply

White supremacy.

#20 | Posted by fresno500 at 2022-06-30 05:45 PM | Reply

Are we still pretending two dudes can be "married" to each other?

Has the new SC Justice Kwaameesha figured out what a woman is, yet?

#15 | Posted by Mao_Content

How is it pretending? Marriage is a legal construct. If it's legal, then they can be married.

How does it affect your life?

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 06:02 PM | Reply

How does it affect your life?

People with miserable lives prefer others suffer.

Conservatives in a nutshell.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-30 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"How does it affect your life?"

How does not having a Right To Life affect my life?

More ways than I can count.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 07:31 PM | Reply

" Garland's seat was stolen. Mitch declared a new rule that you can't appoint a SC judge in an election year then erased that rule for trump"

Nope. It has historical precedent. It's been done before.

" All trump's justices lied under oath, saying that roe was settled and they respected stare decisis"

That's not what they said about Roe and Starre Decis doesn't mean that no prior rulings can ever be overturned. It's happened plenty of times throughout our history.

" Name another country where the person with fewer votes wins."

This is not another country. The electoral college has been how our presidents have been elected since this country was founded.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 11:12 PM | Reply

"The electoral college has been how our presidents have been elected since this country was founded."

Yeah, it's been biased towards the South since inception. Structurally our Republic has little choice to be more conservatives than We The People are. Demographic changes have made it more extreme than it once was, particularly in the last century or so.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the party that benefits from this imbalance has likewise become more extreme in our lifetimes.

Now they're talking about, and will presumably get from the Supreme Court, the right for States to ignore the plebiscite when choosing their elected officials.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 11:28 PM | Reply

So, one could reasonably call that a legal coup d'etat.

This dovetails nicely with the Republican talking point that we aren't a democracy to begin with, which has been in heavy rotation since right around the time Trump got elected and the plan for the legislative takeover by Red States and a Supreme Court that lets Red states pick their own electors, thus effectively ending the democracy we never were.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 11:36 PM | Reply

Today marks the end of what is surely one of the worst terms in #SCOTUS history. Guns and prayer and abortion got most of the attention. But that's not all the Court did. Here are just some of the Court's bad decisions:

twitter.com

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-01 06:15 AM | Reply

Pity the Nation (After Khalil Gibran)

Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
and whose bigots haunt the airways
Pity the nation that raises not its voice
but aims to rule the world
by force and by torture
And knows
No other language but its own
Pity the nation whose breath is money
and sleeps the sleep of the too well fed
Pity the nation Oh pity the people of my country
My country, tears of thee
Sweet land of liberty!

Lawrence Ferlinghetti (written in 2007 when he was 88)

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-01 07:41 AM | Reply

The ONLY reason we are seeing op eds like this is because conservatives have a clear majority on the court.

#2 | Posted by BellRinger

It took 50 years but yes they did it. They broke the balance of power by stealing two seats.

The supremes are not supposed to be conservative or liberal. They are supposed to rule impartiality.

Also it's not "against the rules" to stack the court.

It would serve you right if Biden did stack the court.

It would be such great fun to hear you squeal.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-01 02:24 PM | Reply

#29

If Biden were to pack the court the GOP would do the exact same thing when the power balance shifts - likely 2025.

#30 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 02:29 PM | Reply

The reason the current Court's total of 9 seats was chosen had to do with an equal number of Courts of Appeal with each justice being responsible for one.

There are now 13 such Courts. Do the math.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-01 02:33 PM | Reply

#31. Funny how doing the math' never came up when progressives were mostly getting what they wanted and in my lifetime I've never seen any push to pack the court until SCOTUS had an actual majority.

#32 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 02:40 PM | Reply

An actual conservative majority.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 02:41 PM | Reply

If you think what this Court is doing is conservative, you have no idea what conservatism is.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 03:03 PM | Reply

"If Biden were to pack the court the GOP would do the exact same thing when the power balance shifts - likely 2025. "

Then clearly he needs to pack it, then pass a law forbidding any further packing.

I mean ... that's what majorities are meant for, right? To insure one-party rule?

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 03:12 PM | Reply

" Then clearly he needs to pack it, then pass a law forbidding any further packing."

A law that could be overturned by the new majority. Most extreme example is 18 and 21 amendments.

Your takes aren't normally THIS bad.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:15 PM | Reply

"A law that could be overturned by the new majority"

Not if the old majority finds a way to be permanent.

You know ... legally, through the courts.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 03:18 PM | Reply

#37. Don't double down on stupidity. It's a bad look.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:31 PM | Reply

"Don't double down on stupidity."

What kind of a moron are you? I just described the Republican plan since the day they realized demographics were against them.

Are they doubly stupid?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 03:38 PM | Reply

" What kind of a moron are you? I just described the Republican plan since the day they realized demographics were against them."

You erected a giant straw man. Nothing you suggested is even remotely possible without eliminating the filibuster. Only your beloved Democrats have been pushing that. Hard. You probably got aroused when activists filmed Sinema urinating in a public restroom.

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:46 PM | Reply

I just described the Republican plan since the day they realized demographics were against them.

Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the Republic, and they're trending towards sanity.

I don't think anyone in the Republican party is concerned about the demographics against them; seeing as how that "demographic" has predominately condensed into the "angry, urban white -----".

#41 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-07-01 03:50 PM | Reply

"You erected a giant straw man. "

That's twice now; You clearly don't know what that word means.

I described EXACTLY what McConnell and the Rs have been doing: packing the courts so they'll rule the way Republicans want, even while in the minority.

If you can't see something that obvious, you've got your head up your ass. Do you have your head up your ass?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 03:50 PM | Reply

"You probably got aroused when activists filmed Sinema urinating in a public restroom."

I wasn't even aware of it. You otoh, can't seem to get it out of your mind. Is it the "going into a girl's restroom" part, or is the part about going pee-pee?

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 03:53 PM | Reply

#42. Packing the courts is adding seats to an existing court and then appointing ideologically aligned judges. So, how many new seats did Mc Connell add and to which courts?

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:54 PM | Reply

#43. Stop lying. And quit digging

#45 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:55 PM | Reply

Appointing judges through the long-standing and established process isn't "packing".

I'd accuse you of being ignorant but I know you know what the term means. So, you are just deliberately lying.

#46 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:58 PM | Reply

Gutes Deutsch doesn't have a good faith bone in his body.

"But someone has done it before!" absolves him from any standards.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-01 04:19 PM | Reply

Off topic, but equally relevant:

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony of Trump's altercation with Secret Service detail did happen, multiple reports say

Andrew Feinberg Washington, DC 24 minutes ago

The story of an altercation between former president Donald Trump and members of his Secret Service detail on the day of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol was widely repeated and discussed by Secret Service agents and other law enforcement officials when it happened, according to multiple reports.

According to CNN, two sources with the Secret Service say they heard about the incident described by ex-Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in bombshell testimony before the House January 6 select committee on Tuesday, in which Mr Trump berated the head of his protective detail, Robert Engel, and the driver of his armoured SUV, after he was told he could not go to the US Capitol to join the riotous mob he had summoned to Washington that day

Those sources told the network they heard of an "angry confrontation" between Mr Trump and his bodyguards stemming from their refusal to transport the president to the Capitol. Their accounts reportedly "align" with what Ms Hutchinson told the select committee.

www.independent.co.uk

Visitor still around?

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-01 04:28 PM | Reply

On topic:

Congress Has the Constitutional Power to Restrain SCOTUS

Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction" in all cases affecting "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to "such Exceptions" and "under such Regulations" as "the Congress shall make."

The court's appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

If Congress has complete control over the court's appellate jurisdiction, then there are no real limits as to what it could do to shape and structure the court, threatening the separation of powers. As James Madison said with regard to the Bank Bill of 1791, "An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just."

www.nytimes.com

It would be quintessentially American for the language of the Constitution itself to become the petard the Federalist Society's 4-decade effort to insure conservative minority rule dies upon. Couldn't happen to a more worthy bunch of fascists.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-01 04:37 PM | Reply

"Appointing judges through the long-standing and established process isn't "packing"."

The GOP put more time and effort into not appointing justices through novel processes, than they did appointing them through established processes.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And it's no coincidence that the same GOP has put more time and effort into hamstringing Democracy than strengthening it.

The GOP has asked the Supreme Court to abort Democarcy at the state level, and at least four Justices want to do it.

And you'll cheer that ruling too.

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy."
--David Frum (R)

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"#37. Don't double down on stupidity. It's a bad look."

I don't think he can help it. He's always been a bloody-minded poster, but lately he's been a full-time knee-jerk emotion animal. It appears his mind really can't comprehend that, short of a Constitutional amendment, there is no way that a majority can make any rules "permanent" in a way that can't be undone (or outdone) by the next majority.

#52 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 09:57 AM | Reply

#47. It's called precedent.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 10:20 AM | Reply

#47. It's called precedent.

#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-02 10:20 AM | FLAG:

This sc proved precedent doesn't matter

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just want to point out that the argument that voting is the solution to the rights efforts to pack the courts conveniently ignores the salient fact that the courts have been aiding in the rights concerted efforts at voter suppression

#55 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Biden were to pack the court the GOP would do the exact same thing when the power balance shifts - likely 2025.
#30 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Then that's the way it has to be.

See. They obviously are afraid of this happening.

More reason to do it.

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 11:35 AM | Reply

This sc proved precedent doesn't matter

#54 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Exactly.

#57 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 11:36 AM | Reply

#53 it's called rationalization.

There's precedence for all sorts of unsavory stuff.

Citing precedence and acting as if that's it and all is good is really poor thinking.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 11:39 AM | Reply

#47. It's called precedent.

#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Well, we've recently had more than one new precedent, haven't we?

Idiot.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 11:58 AM | Reply

" . It's called precedent.

#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Well, we've recently had more than one new precedent, haven't we?

#59 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2022-07-02 11:58 AM | FLAG: "

I dont know what you are referencing but I am one hundred percent certain it pertains to Trump.

This court is returning some much needed constitutional norms.

Want to impose draconian CO2 regulations? Pass a law.

Want abortion to be legal in all 50 states for the first 22 weeks? Pass a law.

#60 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:00 PM | Reply

I dont know what you are referencing

#60 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Another lie.

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:02 PM | Reply

R.I.P., Norm. You were a funny comedian.

#62 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 01:04 PM | Reply

This court is returning some much needed constitutional norms.

#60 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

This Court is removing long-established rights.

Ordinary Americans are right to be jealous of their rights.

Fascist Americans? Losing a civil liberty is just another day in the life. In fact, civil liberties fly in the face of fascism.

You people are such cynical and thorough hypocrites.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:06 PM | Reply

As far as I can tell JPW is sour that Trump got to appoint judges just like all of his predecessors.

#64 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:07 PM | Reply

The court didn't make abortion illegal. For now it goes to the states. Nothing is stopping Congress from passing a national abortion law.

Please cite another ruling where you feel this court is taking away rights.

#65 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:09 PM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Rights are assumed to be intrinsic and permanent.

Pass a law? Laws prove themselves to be transient things under fascist rule.

You people are going to be passing all sorts of laws. Very nasty ones. You may well start by chasing down women who travel to "free" states for the purpose of abortions. I mean, that's what you say you'll do.

No one is looking forward to a fascist utopia except fascists.

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:10 PM | Reply

#61. No, I really don't know what you were referencing.

#67 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:10 PM | Reply

Please cite another ruling where you feel this court is taking away rights.

#65 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Please agree that abortion is a right.

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:11 PM | Reply

#66. Passing laws is the hallmark of Democracy.

#69 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:12 PM | Reply

Passing laws is the hallmark of Democracy.

#69 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Passing just laws.

You people aren't interested in justice. That, too, contradicts fascism.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:13 PM | Reply

#. Abortion is not a right enshrined in the constitution. I do think it needs to be legal and I feel strongly about that and am paying very close attention as to how it's being handled in my state.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:13 PM | Reply

"Just laws" is a euphemism for "only laws that Zed likes."

#72 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:15 PM | Reply

POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're a fascist. When you feel you have enough power, you will go after all those people you have on that List you keep in your head.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:15 PM | Reply

I will vote against anyone running in my district who seeks to make abortion illegal in my state.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:16 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Do Americans have the fundamental right to decide their own medical treatment?

You'll notice the yes or no aspect to the question?

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:17 PM | Reply

I will vote against anyone running in my district who seeks to make abortion illegal in my state.

#74 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Which State?

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:18 PM | Reply

#73. I'm a fascist because I support Democracy and Constitutional order and norms? You clearly don't know what that word means.

#77 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:19 PM | Reply

I will vote against anyone running in my district who seeks to make abortion illegal in my state.

#74 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Which State?

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:19 PM | Reply

I'm a fascist because I support Democracy and Constitutional order and norms?

#77 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

You're a fascist because you lie about that.

Which State?

#79 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:20 PM | Reply

#75. Do people have a right to assisted suicide? You'll notice there is a yes or no aspect to that question.

#80 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:20 PM | Reply

#79. No. I support Democracy and Constiutional order. You are the one opposed to these things because legislating is difficult and requires compromise.

#81 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:22 PM | Reply

#75. Do people have a right to assisted suicide?

#80 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I don't like it. But yes, they have that right.

Which State?

#82 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:22 PM | Reply

Zed,

If all you are going to do is falsely assign positions to me this discussion becomes pointless

#83 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:23 PM | Reply

No. I support Democracy and Constiutional order.

#81 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I've followed you for months and years. More than a bit crazy, when you think about it. You're a fascist.

Which State?

#84 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:24 PM | Reply

If all you are going to do is falsely assign positions to me

#83 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

I'm discussing your character.

In regards to character, notice that you refuse to tell me what State you live in, much less that abortion or individual determination of health care are rights.

You are hiding. I know why, but perhaps you can explain it to others?

#85 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:26 PM | Reply

Cowardice is another important feature of fascism.

#86 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:29 PM | Reply

#82. Yet laws are on the books denying that right and to my knowledge nobody has ever made any serious attempt to challenge those laws in court.

As for abortion, it needs to be legal but this is where the disagreement occurs - to what extent? I personally think first trimester only and then in only extremely rare instances after that involving the health of the mother.

Some on the left, including some elected Democrats think it should be legal right up to crowning.

#87 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:29 PM | Reply

Which state? None of your damn business.

#88 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:30 PM | Reply

As for abortion, it needs to be legal but this is where the disagreement occurs -

#87 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

Is it a right? This is where the disagreement occurs.

#89 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:31 PM | Reply

#85. I've answered your question about abortion being a right or not.

#90 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:31 PM | Reply

None of your damn business.

#88 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

Yeah, I can see how divulging such information threatens your lilly-white ass.

#91 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:31 PM | Reply

It's not something that is protected by the constitution.

#92 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply

I've answered your question about abortion being a right or not.

#90 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Didn't catch it.

Say it again.

#93 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply

My private life is no business of yours or anyone else on this blog, you entitled -----.

#94 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:33 PM | Reply

It's not something that is protected by the constitution.

#92 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Constitution states that it, as a document, does NOT HAVE TO SPELL OUT RIGHTS, to make them rights.

#95 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:33 PM | Reply

My private life is no business of yours

#94 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Meanwhile, I live in Texas, you quaking violet.

#96 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:34 PM | Reply

#93. See #71

#97 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:35 PM | Reply

Texas. Good for you. A state that has more freedom than most other states.

#98 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:36 PM | Reply

Abortion is not a right enshrined in the constitution.

#71 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Never had to be, did it?

We're getting closer to that whole fascism thing.

Now, what does BELLRINGER think? Does he personally see it as being a right or not?

#99 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:37 PM | Reply

A state that has more freedom than most other states.

#98 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'm a Texan who loves Texas but that's pure BS.

Did I tell you about the local art gallery that was forced to remove Hindu iconography because of threats?

#100 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:39 PM | Reply

95. I have several copies of the Constitution. Can you point out where in the document that is stated? The problem the founders had with the document is that it DOESN'T say that which is why it was amended ten times with the bill of rights.

#101 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:39 PM | Reply

#100. Did the lawmakers make that artwork illegal?

#102 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:40 PM | Reply

Bell I asked boaz and he refuses to answer

Is abortion (reproductive choice) an inherent right of the individual?

Simple yes or no should suffice

#103 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:40 PM | Reply

#99. I've already answered that. I think it needs to be legal and will vote accordingly. I do not think it's a protected right.

#104 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:41 PM | Reply

95. I have several copies of the Constitution. Can you point out where in the document that is stated? The problem the founders had with the document is that it DOESN'T say that which is why it was amended ten times with the bill of rights.

#101 | POSTED BY BELLRING

The 9th amendment you constitutional scholar

You realize that an amendment makes it part of right?

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:41 PM | Reply

The problem the founders had with the document is that it DOESN'T say that which is why it was amended ten times with the bill of rights.

#101 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Bill of Rights was added for fear of people like you. Entirely right.

#106 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:42 PM | Reply

One can imagine a world in which guns are enshrined in nothing Constitutional.

Perhaps we need an Amendment getting rid of them.

Does BELLRINGER think that he has a natural right to a gun?

#107 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:44 PM | Reply

So, BELLRINGER. The basic question is do Rights come from God or from Judge Keg?

#108 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:45 PM | Reply

#99. I've already answered that. I think it needs to be legal and will vote accordingly. I do not think it's a protected right.

#104 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Ok, so you believe the state has inherent authority over your bodily autonomy. Do you believe that the state can force you to give up an organ to save a life? I'm not asking if you support that concept, I am asking if you believe the state has the authority if it so chooses, through law.

#109 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gun ownership is not an inherent right. It's a Constitutional right.

#110 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:47 PM | Reply

Bell do you believe people have the right to life? How do you jibe that with the state being able to pass laws that will, effectively, take lives from healthy women who are prohibited from using a safe and easy medical procedure?

#111 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:47 PM | Reply

#109. I do not believe the state can force people to give up organs.

#112 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:48 PM | Reply

Gun ownership is not an inherent right. It's a Constitutional right.

#110 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

Then Judge Keg can get rid of it, like abortion?

#113 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:48 PM | Reply

I do not believe the state can force people to give up organs.

#112 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Not to be pedantic, but what is childbirth except giving up organs?

#114 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#109. I do not believe the state can force people to give up organs.

#112 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You do realize that Dobbs allows that now, right?

A woman is required to give up her body to save the life of an unwanted fetus. What is the difference from the state requiring you to give up a kidney to save a life?

#115 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:50 PM | Reply

Not to be pedantic, but what is childbirth except giving up organs?

#114 | POSTED BY ZED

Some people (men) have more rights than others (women).

Some animals are more equal than others.

#116 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:51 PM | Reply

Abortion is the killing of a developing life. Its not just a clump of cells being removed from a woman,s body. It's different than a kidney. And your analogy is off. With organs the state making heallthy organ removal to save a life illegal would be a more apt comparison.

#117 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:52 PM | Reply

Abortion is state sanctioned murder. The process of abortion is to directly kill a developing person.

#118 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:54 PM | Reply

It's (fetus) different than a kidney.

#117 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

A purely religous idea.

Is your religion also merely a Constitutional right? Can Judge Keg relieve you of it?

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:55 PM | Reply

A kidney is not the same thing as a fetus.

#120 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:55 PM | Reply

The state not requiring an individual to donate an organ to save a life is state sanctioned murder. The process of not requiring organ donation is to directly kill a living person.

#118 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

You see the problem yet?

#121 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:55 PM | Reply

Abortion is state sanctioned murder.

#118 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Another purely religous idea. But you are inching towards honesty.

#122 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:56 PM | Reply

"Abortion is state sanctioned murder."

And you're on record as being FOR it...on your terms.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-02 01:56 PM | Reply

Abortion is state sanctioned murder.
#118 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

So why do you think the right call by the Supreme Court is that the states can choose to permit murder?
Please explain your thinking.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#119. Plenty of atheists feel the same way.

This is why some on the left turn off people in the middle. The extreme lengths taken to dehumanize a baby still in the womb.

#125 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 01:57 PM | Reply

A kidney is not the same thing as a fetus.

#120 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

If you have a cancerous kidney you remove it surgically and if you have a fetus that's already dead you legally do no damned thing about it.

#126 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:57 PM | Reply

This is why some on the left turn off people in the middle.

#125 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Fascism isn't middle.

#127 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 01:58 PM | Reply

#. Abortion is not a right enshrined in the constitution. I do think it needs to be legal and I feel strongly about that and am paying very close attention as to how it's being handled in my state.

#71 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Abortion is state sanctioned murder.
#118 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

bellringer supports murder

truth hurts

#128 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:59 PM | Reply

#123. Yes. Not on my terms but on the terms set by the legislauture in the state where I reside. Anyone running in my district who pledges they will seek to make abortion illegal in my state will not get my vote.

#129 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:00 PM | Reply

Removing a dead fetus, a miscarriage, is not abortion, Zed.

#130 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Anyone running in my district who pledges they will seek to make murder illegal in my state will not get my vote."

WTF???

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:01 PM | Reply

Anyone running in my district who pledges they will seek to make abortion illegal in my state

#129 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

What State?

#132 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:02 PM | Reply

Removing a dead fetus, a miscarriage, is not abortion, Zed.
#130 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You are wrong.
It is an abortion.
It's also an abortion when the fetus just dies without any intervention whatsoever.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:02 PM | Reply

A kidney is not the same thing as a fetus.
#120 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

So true.
A dead kidney can be removed.
A dead fetus cannot, when abortion is banned.
Please, take twenty minutes to avail yourself of the legal landscape.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Removing a dead fetus, a miscarriage, is not abortion, Zed.

#130 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Is there a legal exception for procedures like this in your State, whichever that it is?

My reading is that it's going to be flatly illegal to do something like that. Health of the mother is no longer a consideration.

#135 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:04 PM | Reply

" Is your religion also merely a Constitutional right? Can Judge Keg relieve you of it?"

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. "Judge Keg" can't and would never rule that a religion is illegal. I don't think even Sotomayor would go that far although she'd be far more likely than Kavanaugh to try it.

#136 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:05 PM | Reply

Removing a dead fetus, a miscarriage, is not abortion, Zed.

#130 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Yet another idiot making arguments when they are ignorant of the facts.

#137 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bell, how do they get a dead fetus out without aborting the fetus?

#138 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:05 PM | Reply

As far as I can tell JPW is sour that Trump got to appoint judges just like all of his predecessors.

#64 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The fact that you had to simplify and strip all context to an absurd level shows how ---- your argument is.

#139 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 02:06 PM | Reply

Removing a dead fetus is not abortion. Abortion is the killing of a life. Removing a miscarriage has nothing to do with abortion.

#140 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply

The justices relieved me of my right to not be subject to religious instruction by public employees.

Just stating a fact

Truth hurts

#141 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply

Removing a dead fetus is not abortion. Abortion is the killing of a life. Removing a miscarriage has nothing to do with abortion.

#140 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You are misinformed

#142 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. "Judge Keg" can't and would never rule that a religion is illegal.

#136 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Abortion is, or was, a Constitutionally protected right. You can't deny this simple truth.

Judge Keg is a liar and a christofascist fanatic. Maybe you're a Jew?

#143 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:08 PM | Reply

#139. Honestly I don't even know what your argument is and that's because you never explain your position. You deal almost exclusively in insults. It's become so chronic that you've simply become boring.

#144 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:08 PM | Reply

D&C Early Abortion (up to 13 weeks)
A D&C (Dilation and Curretage) is the most common method of early abortion. This method is simple and considered the safest and most convenient way to end an early pregnancy. A D&C procedure is routine, considered safe and will not affect your ability to get pregnant in the future

#145 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:09 PM | Reply

#141. Nobody is forcing you to listen to religious instruction.

#146 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:10 PM | Reply

JeffJ is in Michigan, where JeffJ wants us to believe he's never voted for a Michigan Republican.

Is abortion now illegal in Michigan?
No. In April, Planned Parenthood of Michigan and Dr. Sarah Wallett filed a lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the 1931 law, which would outlaw abortion in the state.
In May, the Michigan Court of Claims granted a preliminary injunction in the suit, meaning the 1931 law will not go into effect until there is a decision in the lawsuit.

However, Right to Life of Michigan, the Michigan Catholic Conference, and two county prosecutors have asked the appeals court to throw out the injunction. Republican leaders in the state legislature have also filed a brief saying they would defend the law in court since Attorney General Dana Nessel has refused to.

What does the 1931 law say?
Under this law, almost all abortions would be considered a felony with a possible penalty of up to four years in prison.
Both doctors who assist in abortions and pregnant people who use medication for self-abortions could be charged.

What exceptions are granted?
The law " one of the strictest in the country " does not grant exceptions in cases of rape or ------. It does grant exceptions to "preserve the life" of the mother, however, experts aren't sure exactly what that means.

When considering other factors " such as the risk level, the viability of the fetus, or pre-existing conditions that may be worsened by the pregnancy " many doctors are concerned about the phrase's ambiguity. Some physicians say they would be forced to decide if a pregnancy is risky enough to justify an abortion under the 1931 law, and to defend themselves if charged.
www.michiganradio.org

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:10 PM | Reply

conservatives are turning women's uteruses into coffins

#148 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:10 PM | Reply

#143. It was never a constitutionally protected right.

#149 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:11 PM | Reply

#141. Nobody is forcing you to listen to religious instruction.
#146 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

They used to.
The Pledge of Allegiance with "Under G-d" added has an element of religious indoctrination.

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:11 PM | Reply

#139. Honestly I don't even know what your argument is and that's because you never explain your position. You deal almost exclusively in insults. It's become so chronic that you've simply become boring.

#144 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Unless I play on a HS football team with a religious whacko for a coach

#151 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:11 PM | Reply

#143. It was never a constitutionally protected right.
#149 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Then there's no Constitutionally protected right to life either.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:12 PM | Reply

Bell, how do they get a dead fetus out without aborting the fetus?
#138 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

JeffJ, what's your answer?
???

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 02:12 PM | Reply

#141. Nobody is forcing you to listen to religious instruction.

#146 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2

Tell me, what do you think fascism is? Maybe I just don't want to be present for a religous service? Maybe I want to be out taking a dump?

#154 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:13 PM | Reply

#143. It was never a constitutionally protected right.

#149 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

How ------- stupid are you?

#155 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:13 PM | Reply

#143. Although I consider myself a Christian I don't practice any form of organized religion.

#156 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:14 PM | Reply

#143. It was never a constitutionally protected right.

#149 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-

To be a Jew?

Like I said, you inch towards honesty.

#157 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:14 PM | Reply

Although I consider myself a Christian I don't practice any form of organized religion.

#156 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2

I am sure that there are millions in this country who are willing to see about that.

#158 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:15 PM | Reply

It was a right created by SCOTUS without any kind of legislative remedy. That ruling was overturned which sends the issue back to the states and allows for a legislative remedy at the federal level.

#159 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:16 PM | Reply

These ignorami set policy in our country.

ARGH

#160 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:17 PM | Reply

Being a Jew is a constitutionally protected right. I thought you were saying that you think I'm a Jew. Im not.

#161 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:17 PM | Reply

#159 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Just admit that you lost.

#162 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:17 PM | Reply

#160. Welcome to Democracy.

#163 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:17 PM | Reply

It was a right created by SCOTUS without any kind of legislative remedy. That ruling was overturned which sends the issue back to the states and allows for a legislative remedy at the federal level.

#159 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

And since it is not an inherent right the federal government has to no power to do what you say.

Jees are you trying to be stupid?

#164 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:18 PM | Reply

#160. Welcome to Idiocracy.

#163 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

FTFY, literally

#165 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:18 PM | Reply

Being a Jew is a constitutionally protected right.

#161 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Spelled out where? The Jewish part?

#166 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:19 PM | Reply

#162 clearly I haven't lost. I like Dobbs because it's a step toward restoring constitutional norms.

#167 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:19 PM | Reply

#166. 1st amendment.

#168 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:19 PM | Reply

#162 clearly I haven't lost.

#167 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Clearly you are bleeding from the nose.

#169 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:20 PM | Reply

You like Dobbs because you hate women

#170 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:21 PM | Reply

#166. 1st amendment.

#168 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

I have met people who do not consider Judaism a religion.

If there is a five to four vote agreeing on in the SC, does that right go away?

#171 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:21 PM | Reply

#164. You are simply wrong about that. It's been explained to you by a number of people.

I've yet to see anyone with a strong legal background make the argument you are making.

#172 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:22 PM | Reply

If there is a five to four vote agreeing on in the SC, does that right go away?

#171 | POSTED BY ZED A

"The right to hate jews? NEVER!"

-Many Mainstream Republicans

#173 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:23 PM | Reply

I think that the legality of Judaism needs to be sent back to the States. Damned Catholics, too.

#174 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:24 PM | Reply

#164. You are simply wrong about that. It's been explained to you by a number of people.
I've yet to see anyone with a strong legal background make the argument you are making.

#172 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Since, even you seem to understand that dobbs overturns the concept that abortion is an inherent right, what power does congress have that would allow them to craft a law that this SC is bound to recognize?

#175 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:25 PM | Reply

Apparently Jeff doesn't believe in inherent rights to bodily autonomy.

#176 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-02 02:25 PM | Reply

There won't be a 5-4 ruling. In the entirety of this country's existence no law has ever been passed to my knowledge that made Judaism illegal. It's pointless to entertain hypotheticals that are unrealistic.

#177 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:25 PM | Reply

In the entirety of this country's existence no law has ever been passed to my knowledge that made Judaism illegal.

#177 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-02

Someone called you naive.

#178 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:26 PM | Reply

#174. I'm sure plenty of people feel that way. The 1st amendment prevents that from happening.

#179 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:27 PM | Reply

The 1st amendment prevents that from happening.

#179 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Constitution does nothing in itself.

You are naive.

#180 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:28 PM | Reply

179 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You just had the example of a settled right having its throat cut. I can't imagine why you'd think more won't follow?

#181 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:29 PM | Reply

Dobbs doesn't make abortion illegal. Therefore Congress has the power to make it legal.

#182 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:29 PM | Reply

I've yet to see anyone with a strong legal background make the argument you are making.

#172 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

www.newyorker.com

I'm extremely skeptical that they would allow Congress to codify a federal right to abortion. They are much more likely to conclude that such a statute exceeds Congress's powers because they don't believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. So that possible basis for the law goes out, and that leaves the Commerce Clause. Given how easy it has been for [the Court] to find ways to strike down statutes that they don't like under the Commerce Clause"like in N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, on the Affordable Care Act"I'm not at all confident that they would say, "Yes, Congress has the authority to codify Roe or the right to an abortion."

You, again, are ignorant

#183 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:30 PM | Reply

Dobbs doesn't make abortion illegal.

#182 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It does many places.

#184 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:30 PM | Reply

#181. It was never a settled right. It was a SCOTUS ruling. Sometimes SCOTUS rulings get overturned by future courts. The 1st Amendment is unambiguous.

#185 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:30 PM | Reply

#184. No, it doesn't. It sends the issue back to the states absent federal legislation.

#186 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:31 PM | Reply

#181. It (abortion) was never a settled right.

#185 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

It was until it wasn't.

#187 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:32 PM | Reply

The 1st Amendment is unambiguous.

#185 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

A committed movement could find much ambiguity in it.

#188 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:33 PM | Reply

It sends the issue back to the states absent federal legislation.

#186 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-07-02 0

You can't get an abortion in Texas. None. That's the outcome of Dobbs.

I really have no idea where you're coming from.

#189 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:34 PM | Reply

#186 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You can't even TALK to a woman in Texas about abortion.

First Amendment my ass.

#190 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 02:35 PM | Reply

#183

Thanks for sharing. That assistant professor makes some pretty convoluted arguments and is biased by her obvious hatred of the conservative justices but at least you provided a source with a legal background making that argument. Here is the thing though, she doesn't make her case with a lot of confidence. The word "might" was frequently used.

#191 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:53 PM | Reply

I'm still waiting on Jeff to tell me what law accorded him the right to a vasectomy.

#192 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-07-02 02:54 PM | Reply

#190. So Texas has a law prohibiting people from talking to women about abortion?

#193 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:54 PM | Reply

Thanks for sharing. That assistant professor makes some pretty convoluted arguments and is biased by her obvious hatred of the conservative justices but at least you provided a source with a legal background making that argument. Here is the thing though, she doesn't make her case with a lot of confidence. The word "might" was frequently used.

#191 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Nothing to rebut except a criticism of her appropriate use of the term might.

Gee, you're an ignoramus

#194 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:56 PM | Reply

#189 Dobbs doesn't make abortion illegal. It simply sends it to the states. It didn't invalidate laws allowing for abortion in any state.

#195 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:57 PM | Reply

#194. There is plenty to rebut. The issue is time. I have other things to do today. I'm leaving in a few minutes to visit my dad at the hospital.

#196 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 02:58 PM | Reply

I'm leaving in a few minutes to visit my dad at the hospital.

#196 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Is he getting an abortion?

#197 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 03:00 PM | Reply

It didn't invalidate laws allowing for abortion in any state.
#195 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Roe invalidated laws banning abortion in every state.

If you think abortion should be legal, you shouldn't support the possibility of abortion once again becoming criminalized.

Yet you do support exactly that.

#198 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

139. Honestly I don't even know what your argument is and that's because you never explain your position. You deal almost exclusively in insults. It's become so chronic that you've simply become boring.

#144 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It's not hard to follow despite your strawmen.

Garland's stonewalling and subsequent rushed process for Coney-Barret was poor faith acting by McConnell. To act as if precedence changes that is dishonest.

To act as if people don't have a right to be pissed that they're living under an extreme, religious driven court we shouldn't be experiencing is disingenuous.

I don't deal entirely in insults, you just don't make arguments that warrant serious responses because they're often disingenuous or dishonest.

#199 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#199 I agree that Garland was acting in bad faith. Even though that had been done before I think the last time was about a century ago. If the GOP wins the WH in 2024 but the Dems have the Senate you won't see me complain if a vacancy occurs and Schumer walks into the Oval Office with a list and informs POTUS that if he/she appoints anyone not on the list the nominee will get the Garland treatment. And that is even if the vacancy occurs in the first year of the term. You built that, Mitch.

I can understand being pissed about Garland or ACB, but not both. To say Garland should have gone through the process AND ACB should have waited until after the election is a bad faith argument.

#200 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-02 07:26 PM | Reply

#189 Dobbs doesn't make abortion illegal. It simply sends it to the states. It didn't invalidate laws allowing for abortion in any state.
#195 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

If it's up to the States, why are Republicans trying to implement a Federal abortion ban?
Explain how that is legal under Dobbs.

#201 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 03:40 AM | Reply

SNOOFY

Republicans are going to ask (and expect) the Supreme Court to do an end run around Dobbs. If past performance is any example, they'll stretch any reason, regardless of how tortured, to get it done.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the past no longer exists. It's now the legislative wing of the Republican Party that has the authority to ignore any resemblance to a Constitutional Republic.

We really have reached the point when too late came sooner than we thought.

#202 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-07-03 06:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort