What's the deal w/ Bill Frist?

[Guest MikeSC]

I have few problems with abortion in the case of an extreme medical necessity, it's the "whoops I'm pregnant" cases I'm not pro-choice on. Actually, lots of girls that I know are also conditionally pro-choice/pro-life in this fashion, contrary to the belief that ALL females support abortion.

Too bad that you can't find a study where even 20% of abortions are done for any medical reasons...

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I have few problems with abortion in the case of an extreme medical necessity, it's the "whoops I'm pregnant" cases I'm not pro-choice on. Actually, lots of girls that I know are also conditionally pro-choice/pro-life in this fashion, contrary to the belief that ALL females support abortion.

Too bad that you can't find a study where even 20% of abortions are done for any medical reasons...

-=Mike

Then I guess I only tolerate <20% of abortions.

 

Killing your unborn child in a form of retroactive birth control is pretty reprehensible and I don't know how those people can live with themselves after several, let alone one.

[SuperJerk 0]

Except --- as they admit --- the "right to privacy" doesn't, you know, ACTUALLY exist.

They didn't admit that the right doesn't exist, they admitted it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. WHAT YOU'RE FORGETTING is that the 9th Amendment exists specifically so not every right needed to be laid out in the Constitution.

 

How about we create two Americas? One where people have a right to privacy, and one where people do not have a right to privacy. Which one do you really want to live in?

 

If you truly believe you have no right to privacy, then would you mind if I posted your social security number, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers?

 

I didn't think so.

 

 

 

They made it up out of thin air.

 

No, not out of thin air.

 

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

[The Czech Republic 0]

How about we create two Americas?

Fucking Democrats, did they copyright this?

[Guest MikeSC]

Except --- as they admit --- the "right to privacy" doesn't, you know, ACTUALLY exist.

They didn't admit that the right doesn't exist, they admitted it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. WHAT YOU'RE FORGETTING is that the 9th Amendment exists specifically so not every right needed to be laid out in the Constitution.

 

 

So, a right that allows the slaughtering of unborn children is covered by the Ninth Amendment?

 

Got it.

 

Interesting legal stretch there.

How about we create two Americas?  One where people have a right to privacy, and one where people do not have a right to privacy.  Which one do you really want to live in? 

Considering how easily your right to privacy is violated (hell, you have to reveal how much money you make to the gov't every year), you wouldn't notice the difference.

If you truly believe you have no right to privacy, then  would you mind if I posted your social security number, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers?

And the red herring of fraud prevention as proof of a right to privacy rears its head.

They made it up out of thin air.

No, not out of thin air.

Yes, thin air. The TENTH AMENDMENT is more apropos for this instance, but the Courts aren't too fond of that Amendment.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

The Court recognized that "seperate but equal" was perfectly legal.

 

Just because they rule something is legal does not make it so.

 

Why the left has more faith in 9 unaccountable octogenarians over, you know, the will of the people is lost on me.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

 

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have?

 

It's not "what is and is not law", that's just dishonest spin from you. It's "What is constitutional and what is not"

 

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.

 

So basically, they didn't order nothing. They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._legal_in_mass/

The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution.

 

I didn't even get into the busing debacles of the 1970's.

Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

 

I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too.

Hmm, let's look at, oh, Kansas City. $1.7 BILLION spent on a busing plan by a judge. Yes, the JUDGE gave himself the power to spend the state's money --- which only pisses on the whole seperation of power thing (the legislature tends to have that power).

 

It only took about 20 years for a court to FINALLY step in and say that the judge might have crossed the line.

 

Might have?

 

Pretty deceptive terminology for what really happened.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/1035/

Last June, in Missouri vs. Jenkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the judge had gone too far. He could not require the open-ended financing of magnet schools, and he could not use magnet schools to attract suburban whites to Kansas City schools, when the suburbs had done nothing unlawful.

 

Sure, almost TWO BILLION DOLLARS were spent by a judge with no, you know, ACTUAL power to spend it...

 

I'm not quite sure, but I wouldn't be stunned if there weren't so much spent, considering the legal action that had to have come quickly out of that decision

 

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history.

 

Wait..

 

overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion

 

but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy?

 

You're being far too light on courts there.

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy.

 

And the opposite could apply to that too.

 

here is a legal justification for the state not being able to perform extreme search and seizure that would be necessary to enforce sodomy laws.

 

Yeah, enforcement part is another tough part of enforcing the laws. Some people don't let that deter them.

 

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

 

So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case?

 

News to me

[Guest MikeSC]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have?

And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from?

 

Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself.

 

Funny how that works.

It's not "what is and is not law", that's just dishonest spin from you. It's "What is constitutional and what is not"

Care to defend the utter bastardization of the interstate commerce clause by the courts?

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.

So basically, they didn't order nothing.

I bolded the part you apparently missed.

They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period.

Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely?

I didn't even get into the busing debacles of the 1970's.

Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too.

Hmm, let's look at, oh, Kansas City. $1.7 BILLION spent on a busing plan by a judge. Yes, the JUDGE gave himself the power to spend the state's money --- which only pisses on the whole seperation of power thing (the legislature tends to have that power).

 

It only took about 20 years for a court to FINALLY step in and say that the judge might have crossed the line.

Might have?

 

Pretty deceptive terminology for what really happened.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/1035/

Last June, in Missouri vs. Jenkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the judge had gone too far. He could not require the open-ended financing of magnet schools, and he could not use magnet schools to attract suburban whites to Kansas City schools, when the suburbs had done nothing unlawful.

The "might have" was sarcasm.

 

And you ignore that the court OVERSTEPPED its bounds for about 20 years and spent nearly $2B which the state HAD to approve.

 

So, that's not the courts making law...how?

Sure, almost TWO BILLION DOLLARS were spent by a judge with no, you know, ACTUAL power to spend it...

I'm not quite sure, but I wouldn't be stunned if there weren't so much spent, considering the legal action that had to have come quickly out of that decision

The judge TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for all intents and purposes.

 

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history.

 

Wait..

 

overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion

 

but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy?

 

You're being far too light on courts there.

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy.

And the opposite could apply to that too.

Care to reveal how?

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case?

 

News to me

If there's no definition --- why is it legal?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

The Court recognized that "seperate but equal" was perfectly legal.

 

Just because they rule something is legal does not make it so.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind.

 

Why the left has more faith in 9 unaccountable octogenarians over, you know, the will of the people is lost on me.

 

Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?

[Guest MikeSC]

The Court recognized that "seperate but equal" was perfectly legal.

 

Just because they rule something is legal does not make it so.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind.

 

Why the left has more faith in 9 unaccountable octogenarians over, you know, the will of the people is lost on me.

 

Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?

The Court, like it or not, can be WRONG and has been SPECTACULARLY wrong many times in the past.

Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?

YES!

 

I've said, all along, this should've been left to the voters in the individual states to make the decision. That would've led to the issue being MUCH less heated than it is.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have?

And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from?

 

Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself.

 

Funny how that works.

Strange how Congress never proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" that. Considering it's within their power. (Unless Constitutional amendments can be declared unconstitutional. Ha)

 

 

It's not "what is and is not law", that's just dishonest spin from you. It's "What is constitutional and what is not"

Care to defend the utter bastardization of the interstate commerce clause by the courts?

 

Such as in the decisions regarding the Civil Rights act?

 

Or something else?

 

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.

So basically, they didn't order nothing.

I bolded the part you apparently missed.

 

I didn't miss it.

 

It's not an order if you give someone an opportunity to do something. The court ruling wasn't taking effect for 180 days, so the legislature could rewrite their law and try to make it conform to the ruling.

 

Mike, say I give you the opportunity to find tickets to a Hootie and the Blowfish concert in the sand at Myrtle Beach. That's an offer, not an order. If you don't do it, it'll be your loss.

 

They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period.

Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely?

 

I'm pretty sure your POV is "overturning a law as being unconstitutional = deciding law". I could be wrong.

 

And you ignore that the court OVERSTEPPED its bounds for about 20 years and spent nearly $2B which the state HAD to approve.

 

So, that's not the courts making law...how?

 

(..)

 

The judge TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for all intents and purposes.

 

Feel free to do one of the following

 

a) mention a source for your claims

b) mention the name of the judge

 

You can see how I'm skeptical of your claims, right?

 

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy.

And the opposite could apply to that too.

Care to reveal how?

 

One could argue that STDs are transmitted though sodomy. Therefore harming others.

 

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case?

 

News to me

If there's no definition --- why is it legal?

 

Since people disagree on when life begins, abortion should be illegal?

 

Just asking

[SuperJerk 0]

The Court recognized that "seperate but equal" was perfectly legal.

 

Just because they rule something is legal does not make it so.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind.

The Court, like it or not, can be WRONG and has been SPECTACULARLY wrong many times in the past.

But that's not what you said. You said they couldn't make something legal, which they clearly can.

 

 

Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?

YES!

 

I've said, all along, this should've been left to the voters in the individual states to make the decision. That would've led to the issue being MUCH less heated than it is.

-=Mike

 

The are somethings, in my view, that supercede democracy. People's rights certainly supercede democracy, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. Those rights cannot be violated by majority rule. According to the Court, the right to privacy is one of those rights. The 9th Amendment clearly states that not every right is enumerated in the Constitution itself, so the argument that the right to privacy cannot exist because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is invalid.

 

I'm curious, though, if you believe in the 10th Amendment so much, by what authority does the federal government have to institute a nation-wide ban on partial birth abortion?

 

 

edit: Almost forgot about this...

 

And the red herring of fraud prevention as proof of a right to privacy rears its head.

 

Pointing out that fraud is one of the reasons for privacy rights does in no way invalidate the right to privacy.

Edited April 16, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest MikeSC]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have?

And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from?

 

Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself.

 

Funny how that works.

Strange how Congress never proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" that.

 

 

And deal with the outcry from the press? It's not worth the headache for Congress yet.

Considering it's within their power. (Unless Constitutional amendments can be declared unconstitutional. Ha)

Actually, I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court can find amendments unconstitutional if they choose to.

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.

So basically, they didn't order nothing.

I bolded the part you apparently missed.

I didn't miss it.

 

It's not an order if you give someone an opportunity to do something. The court ruling wasn't taking effect for 180 days, so the legislature could rewrite their law and try to make it conform to the ruling.

Or, in simple terms, they gave the legislature 6 months to make the law to what the courts wanted it to be.

They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period.

Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely?

I'm pretty sure your POV is "overturning a law as being unconstitutional = deciding law". I could be wrong.

Saying "If you don't change this in 6 months to what we want, it'll be what we want anyway" is dictating law.

And you ignore that the court OVERSTEPPED its bounds for about 20 years and spent nearly $2B which the state HAD to approve.

 

So, that's not the courts making law...how?

 

(..)

 

The judge TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for all intents and purposes.

Feel free to do one of the following

 

a) mention a source for your claims

b) mention the name of the judge

Judge Russell G. Clark.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.168...icle_detail.asp

http://www.amren.com/9512issue/9512issue.html

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy.

And the opposite could apply to that too.

Care to reveal how?

One could argue that STDs are transmitted though sodomy. Therefore harming others.

Transmitted by individual choices.

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case?

 

News to me

If there's no definition --- why is it legal?

Since people disagree on when life begins, abortion should be illegal?

 

Just asking

Let's look at worst case scenarios:

Life begins at birth and abortion is illegal: Women are forced to carry pregnancies to term

Life begins at conception and abortion is legal: Babies are being slaughtered.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The Court recognized that "seperate but equal" was perfectly legal.

 

Just because they rule something is legal does not make it so.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind.

The Court, like it or not, can be WRONG and has been SPECTACULARLY wrong many times in the past.

But that's not what you said. You said they couldn't make something legal, which they clearly can.

I misspoke. They can make anything they want legal. They do so regularly. It doesn't make it right, justifiable, or even Constitutional.

Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?

YES!

 

I've said, all along, this should've been left to the voters in the individual states to make the decision. That would've led to the issue being MUCH less heated than it is.

-=Mike

The are somethings, in my view, that supercede democracy. People's rights certainly supercede democracy, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. Those rights cannot be violated by majority rule. According to the Court, the right to privacy is one of those rights.

And there is no right to privacy.

 

See, I support letting the people decide. You, apparently, are not quite the fan of democracy. So be it.

 

I don't much like authoritarianism.

The 9th Amendment clearly states that not every right is enumerated in the Constitution itself, so the argument that the right to privacy cannot exist because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is invalid.

 

I'm curious, though, if you believe in the 10th Amendment so much, by what authority does the federal government have to institute a nation-wide ban on partial birth abortion?

It's a form of murder.

edit: Almost forgot about this...

 

And the red herring of fraud prevention as proof of a right to privacy rears its head.

Pointing out that fraud is one of the reasons for privacy rights does in no way invalidate the right to privacy.

No, using a felony to defend a non-existant right is not a defense.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I misspoke. They can make anything they want legal. They do so regularly. It doesn't make it right, justifiable, or even Constitutional.

Fair enough.

 

And there is no right to privacy.

 

See, I support letting the people decide. You, apparently, are not quite the fan of democracy. So be it.

 

I don't much like authoritarianism.

 

Democracy is not perfect. Believing that democracy is not 100% reliable is not the same as supporting authoritarianism.

 

There are just some things that public opinion has no jurisdiction over.

 

The 9th Amendment clearly states that not every right is enumerated in the Constitution itself, so the argument that the right to privacy cannot exist because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is invalid.

 

I'm curious, though, if you believe in the 10th Amendment so much, by what authority does the federal government have to institute a nation-wide ban on partial birth abortion?

It's a form of murder.

 

Murder is a state level crime. The federal government only prosecutes murder cases if it involves federal employees. Thus, even if partial-birth abortion was murder, the federal government has no jurisdiction in outlawing it.

 

 

Pointing out that fraud is one of the reasons for privacy rights does in no way invalidate the right to privacy.

No, using a felony to defend a non-existant right is not a defense.

 

I never said anything about committing fraud with your info, though. I just asked if it was okay to publish your private information. What other people do with it has nothing to do with me.

 

I'm curious to know how far your disbelief in a right to privacy goes. Would you object to someone publishing the most intimate details of your life, if the right to privacy does not actually exist?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have?

And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from?

 

Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself.

 

Funny how that works.

Strange how Congress never proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" that.

 

 

And deal with the outcry from the press? It's not worth the headache for Congress yet.

Well.. that's conviction

 

"We'll do what's right, unless we think the mean press would criticize us for it"

 

 

Considering it's within their power. (Unless Constitutional amendments can be declared unconstitutional. Ha)

Actually, I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court can find amendments unconstitutional if they choose to.

 

They can find part of the constitution to be unconstitutional?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Or, in simple terms, they gave the legislature 6 months to make the law to what the courts wanted it to be.

 

Wait..

 

I thought the COURT made the law.

 

But, I guess now, you're claiming that the legislature made the law.

 

Either way.. it's not an order.

 

They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period.

Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely?

I'm pretty sure your POV is "overturning a law as being unconstitutional = deciding law". I could be wrong.

Saying "If you don't change this in 6 months to what we want, it'll be what we want anyway" is dictating law.

 

No, what they said was "if you do not change the law to comply with our decision within six months, it will be overturned"

 

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy.

And the opposite could apply to that too.

Care to reveal how?

One could argue that STDs are transmitted though sodomy. Therefore harming others.

Transmitted by individual choices.

 

True. Even if there's also civil grounds for suit if one person did not reveal the STD in question.

 

It's not totally a free ride for the "sodomy is safe" position.

 

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case?

 

News to me

If there's no definition --- why is it legal?

Since people disagree on when life begins, abortion should be illegal?

 

Just asking

Let's look at worst case scenarios:

Life begins at birth and abortion is illegal: Women are forced to carry pregnancies to term

Life begins at conception and abortion is legal: Babies are being slaughtered.

 

Ooh, simplistic.

 

Yes, i'm sure it's just "women are forced to carry pregnancies to term", there aren't any other things involved with women who seek abortions. They just carry the pregnancy to term, whistle, have the kid, and move on.

[Vyce 0]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

But you see, that's my whole point (which at this point has been pretty much no-sold for the usual pro-life / pro-choice debate).

 

Republicans CAN make a case, I believe, that DEMOCRATS aren't making that sort of distinction, that they'll filibuster any of Bush's judicial nominees that are religious on the pure assumption that the religious preference of those nominees must also make them anti-abortion as well.

 

And unlike Jobber, I don't think it will alienate most "regular" folks. Abortion is different than the whole Schiavo right to life / death argument. People largely want to decide how they're going to punch out; abortion's a subject that has much more negativity attached to it. Most people may favor having the choice of abortion, but studies have shown that over the past 30 years American culture has shifted to finding it a more......distasteful practice. A "necessary evil" perhaps.

[SuperJerk 0]

And you ignore that the court OVERSTEPPED its bounds for about 20 years and spent nearly $2B which the state HAD to approve.

 

So, that's not the courts making law...how?

 

(..)

 

The judge TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for all intents and purposes.

Feel free to do one of the following

 

a) mention a source for your claims

b) mention the name of the judge

Judge Russell G. Clark.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.168...icle_detail.asp

http://www.amren.com/9512issue/9512issue.html

Man, how did I miss THIS the first time?

 

Your criticism that sometimes judges overstep their authority is valid, but I'd also like to point out that his power was not left completely unchecked. Many of Clark's decisions were overturned before the case was given to another judge who ended the case in 2003.

 

That does not excuse his assumption of the power of taxation, however.

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...ews/6524022.htm

[MrRant 0]

Someone needs to throw a payphone at Mike.

[Guest MikeSC]

Someone needs to throw a payphone at Mike.

Still menstruating?

 

Well, explains the lack of intellect...

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

For the record, that was the dumbest insult I've ever heard.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Love how he insults women there.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Hmm, first double post.

[BUTT 0]

Someone needs to throw a payphone at Mike.

Still menstruating?

 

Well, explains the lack of intellect...

-=Mike

Trying for a job at Harvard, Mike?

[Guest Cerebus]

Frist is a weak willed pussy (see my previous post). He should have done this MONTHS ago, and if he did there would have been a much lower chance it would have been reframed by the ass clowns that make up the Jerry Falwell wing of the party.

 

As it is, I'm not to pleased about the way some Dems have treated Catholic judges so I can't say this is too egregious. But, PR wise, I still think its well over the line because there is a very compelling argument that the blocking of the judges is a circumvent of the Constitution (as is the Filibuster itself in my opinion) and that the Democrats use of it is a shameless abuse of Senatorial power. If you ask me, that's a more compelling argument than Jesus wouldn't filibuster.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, a right that allows the slaughtering of unborn children is covered by the Ninth Amendment?

(...)

Yes, thin air. The TENTH AMENDMENT is more apropos for this instance, but the Courts aren't too fond of that Amendment.

And there is no right to privacy.

Look at those amendments together. It says that the government has no right to order you around and tell you what you can do except in cases covered by the Constitution. Taken literally, it means the government can't force you to divulge private information.

 

And yet you claim to be the one who wants to follow the Constition to the most literal meaning. What a dumbass!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Republicans CAN make a case, I believe, that DEMOCRATS aren't making that sort of distinction, that they'll filibuster any of Bush's judicial nominees that are religious on the pure assumption that the religious preference of those nominees must also make them anti-abortion as well.

Sorry, Vyce, but this is a little retarded.

 

The people who have connected religion and abortion and filibusters together is not the Democrats. It's the Republicans. Abortion hasn't been much of a spoken issue during this judicial screening process. The GOP and their media types, however, have turned what basically could be summed up as "This is why Filibusters are bad!" into a loony "They're clearly scared because we have power and they want to keep their precious abortions omg religion it all comes together!!" message.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Frist is a weak willed pussy (see my previous post). He should have done this MONTHS ago, and if he did there would have been a much lower chance it would have been reframed by the ass clowns that make up the Jerry Falwell wing of the party.

The "Jerry Falwell wing" didn't reframe this. The people organizing the event framed it with posters like the image posted earlier in this thread. If Frist didn't agree with the tone of that message, he probably wouldn't have shown up.

 

As it is, I'm not to pleased about the way some Dems have treated Catholic judges so I can't say this is too egregious.

 

It will probably get repeated over and over on Al Franken and Bill Maher's programs for a week and forgotten about, because aside from being controversial it simply isn't true. Shame, though, as it'd be exciting to see a true secularist power in US politics.

 

But, PR wise, I still think its well over the line because there is a very compelling argument that the blocking of the judges is a circumvent of the Constitution (as is the Filibuster itself in my opinion) and that the Democrats use of it is a shameless abuse of Senatorial power.

 

Isn't the way the rule works that if one party has (x) number of seats, and the Republicans currently are just a hair short, that they can overrule fillibusters? I've heard a lot of discussion (or fearmongering) about how the Republicans only have to win a seat here and there and they can end the fillibuster and the Democrats will have lost their last method to have any influence in the direction of the government, and will be forced to sit and watch in horror as the Republicans do what they want, when they want, and as much as they want. A true backseat party.

 

If this is not fiction, then by having a rule to overturn filibusters, then it's not an illogical conclusion to assume that somebody thought that eventually someone would make one.

[Guest MikeSC]

Love how he insults women there.

No, not really. But thanks for playing.

 

Apparently, the concept of long-term blood loss is foreign to you and you simply decided it was misogyny. Got it.

Look at those amendments together. It says that the government has no right to order you around and tell you what you can do except in cases covered by the Constitution. Taken literally, it means the government can't force you to divulge private information.

 

And yet you claim to be the one who wants to follow the Constition to the most literal meaning. What a dumbass!

Except the government CAN, you fucking twit. It does so regularly.

 

Does it every April 15th, for example.

Isn't the way the rule works that if one party has (x) number of seats, and the Republicans currently are just a hair short, that they can overrule fillibusters? I've heard a lot of discussion (or fearmongering) about how the Republicans only have to win a seat here and there and they can end the fillibuster and the Democrats will have lost their last method to have any influence in the direction of the government, and will be forced to sit and watch in horror as the Republicans do what they want, when they want, and as much as they want. A true backseat party.

Filibusters are simply Senate rules that can be changed by a majority at any point they so desire.

-=Mike

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Hmm, I don't know what a period is? Your tank really that empty? Oh well.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

I wonder if he's going to say I wasn't worth the effort of a better response now?