Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

    As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

    Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

    How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

    Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    I didn't say it was, obviously. I'm just giving you a little peek into how others feel so perhaps you'll realize how far off you are in this case.
    Click to expand...

    How others feel also isn’t law. And how can I be “far off” when I’m stating what the law actually is? When what you’re saying is what the law isn’t?
     
    superchuck500 said:
    The idea that an American lawmaker cannot cite religion as a basis for his or her support of a law or policy is nonsense. And when they do, it doesn’t involve citizens being subjected to religion against their will. The case you cite involved a nativity scene at a courthouse (and a dissent isn’t law).

    Are you aware that the Supreme Court has in modern times ruled that towns can open meetings with prayer as long as they don’t exclude anyone who wishes to lead the “prayer” time slot? Or that a public high school coach did not violate the establishment clause by conducting prayers on the 50 yard line after games?

    If you really want me to expound - with case citation - to explain to you what I think it well settled and beyond dispute, I will. But really? You’re grossly expanding the meaning is the establishment clause and suggesting it requires the complete divorce of religion from all aspects of governing - when both the text of the clause and the Supreme Court say no such thing.
    Click to expand...

    They botched that one big time.
     
    MT15 said:
    Dave - I do think that the states who have passed these very restrictive abortion laws have crossed the line between church and state. That’s why there are several suits against these states right now by Jewish people and people of other faiths, saying that the restrictions are contrary to their own religious beliefs and that they are forcing them to live by fundamentalist Christian and Catholic beliefs.
    Click to expand...
    I don't disagree, but being what it is now, people in those states will have to make their own decisions about what their abortion laws are. Granted there probably will come a time when those limits are revisited at the federal level. I'm not sure how that would happen. The best way to resolve it imo is for Congress to codify something approaching what Roe was for 50 years.

    I still contend that a lot of politicians are pro-life or pro-choice because it's their party's position and not so much a real personal or religious red line. It's politically driven, although there's no doubt some religious influence, particularly in the Republican Party. If not for the party's duplicity in all things Trump, I might still be a Republican today. As things sit now, I can't see myself returning.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    How others feel also isn’t law. And how can I be “far off” when I’m stating what the law actually is? When what you’re saying is what the law isn’t?
    Click to expand...
    Nonsense again. No one is saying that religion can't play a part in a voter's mind or a law makers mind. What's being said by those of us who can think is that religion can't be THE reason behind a law or position. Right now when it comes to abortion we have religion as THE reason the Supreme Court, and states, are pushing pro-life.
     
    SystemShock said:
    That sounds good, but we know the real reason why the SC pushed back abortion to the States, and that reason is giving red States the ability to ban abortions for residents of that State, and not because it makes sense constitutionally. And that decision was based on religious zealousness and interpretation of a religious book.
    Click to expand...
    Fair point. But I maintain that we're in this spot more because of the hyper-politicization of the nomination process for SCOTUS justices than because of religion. The anti-abortion stance as a political position has been around since well before the religious right in politics was a thing.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    Nonsense again. No one is saying that religion can't play a part in a voter's mind or a law makers mind. What's being said by those of us who can think is that religion can't be THE reason behind a law or position. Right now when it comes to abortion we have religion as THE reason the Supreme Court, and states, are pushing pro-life.
    Click to expand...
    Implying a lawyer can't think is pretty comical.
     
    DaveXA said:
    Fair point. But I maintain that we're in this spot more because of the hyper-politicization of the nomination process for SCOTUS justices than because of religion. The anti-abortion stance as a political position has been around since well before the religious right in politics was a thing.
    Click to expand...
    It is the hyper-political that are following the hyper-religious lead not the other way around.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    Stewart Rhodes
    Richard Nixon
    Click to expand...
    Lol, you do realize Chuck is a lawyer, right? And knowing his posting history, one of the more reasonable ones I've read over the years.

    BullSheetBuddha said:
    It is the hyper-political that are following the hyper-religious lead.
    Click to expand...
    There's some of that. But again, I think it's the other way around for the most part.
     
    DaveXA said:
    Like I said, you insulting people you're debating with isn't gonna win you anything.
    Click to expand...
    I'm not insulting anyone. It's you who is drooling at the mouth and has been throughout the last few pages of this thread. I saw it coming dozens of posts ago.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    I'm not insulting anyone. It's you who is drooling at the mouth and has been throughout the last few pages of this thread. I saw it coming dozens of posts ago.
    Click to expand...

    You might want to give it a rest. Chuck was trying to patiently explain to you the reality and legality of what you are going on about. He and Dave have been far more patient than your posts have warranted.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom