Burgold

Anthony Kennedy announces intention to retire from SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Do people think that abortion is the most important thing the SCOTUS impacts?

 

Well there’s citizens united, voter disenfranchisement, second amendment, net neutrality and a myriad of other free speech things.

 

But chicks will flip if Roe is overturned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

But the mother provokes the danger by conception and the fetus has taken no steps in creating the danger other than existing.  Traditional self defense would not apply.  We can start killing innocent people for self preservation now?  

 

Can a mother kill a baby after birth if the child has strong resemblance to the rapist because it's a continuation of the attack?

 

Nature provokes the danger if one exists in medical need cases, conception is not a conscious choice but rather a assumed risk(except in rape cases)

in rape cases the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth(if you forced carrying to term) thus ending a alleged attack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Do people think that abortion is the most important thing the SCOTUS impacts?

 

I'm pretty sure there are people that think it's the only thing it impacts.

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Do people think that abortion is the most important thing the SCOTUS impacts?

Sadly I think a lot of people do.

 

I mean, sure, it's probably in the top 10, maybe even top 5, but number 1, far and away will be the death of free and fair elections.

 

Basically everything flows forth from that.

 

Not to take away the importance of Roe for women and women's rights, but as long as we have free and fair elections it is likely that abortion would remain legal, or could at least be made legal once more if ever made illegal.

Edited by DogofWar1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well there’s citizens united, voter disenfranchisement, second amendment, net neutrality and a myriad of other free speech things.

 

But chicks will flip if Roe is overturned.

 

The list is so much longer than that.  

 

Also, you've committed my #1 grammar faux pas.  You do not have "a myriad of" something.  You have "myriad" something.  Please correct your usage in the future. :cheers:

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

in rape cases the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth(if you forced carrying to term) thus ending a alleged attack.

 

I honestly don't know what would be worse, getting rid of the child or keeping it.

 

i imagine it just depends on the mother. carrying a child and birthing it is more than just a transaction.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The list is so much longer than that.  

 

Also, you've committed my #1 grammar faux pas.  You do not have "a myriad of" something.  You have "myriad" something.  Please correct your usage in the future. :cheers:

 

****, you learn something every day.  Thanks!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I'm not mistaken, both Collins and Murkowski are pro choice republican senators. I suspect they won't allow anyone through who would even dream of overturning Roe.

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I can't come to this thread if it's going to be TWA pontificating on the finer points of privacy law. I'll shoot myself in the face.

 

This is disastrous, because even if the country "swings left" over the next twenty years as one would assume is going to happen, the Supreme Court with 5 and possibly 6 young hardcore Heritage Foundation zealots slowly returning us to a 1920s view of the Constitution.

 

Donald Freaking Trump seriously has a chance to set policy for this country for the next 40 years, and I don't think he's ever read a book. God be merciful.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

If I'm not mistaken, both Collins and Murkowski are pro choice republican senators. I suspect they won't allow anyone through who would even dream of overturning Roe.

 

They both voted for Gorsuch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

If I'm not mistaken, both Collins and Murkowski are pro choice republican senators. I suspect they won't allow anyone through who would even dream of overturning Roe.

 

They all play this game, and then vote with McConnell.

 

We're so screwed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Seriously, I can't come to this thread if it's going to be TWA pontificating on the finer points of privacy law. I'll shoot myself in the face.

 

 

 

 

Well I'm torn on this one. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Nature provokes the danger if one exists in medical need cases, conception is not a conscious choice but rather a assumed risk(except in rape cases)

in rape cases the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth(if you forced carrying to term) thus ending a alleged attack.

 

 

The morher could just give it up to one of Trump’s concentration camps, I hear they have lots of those down in Texas.

 

 

In all seriousness, I think it’s a bit naive to just say “the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth”.  It isn’t that easy I don’t think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Nature provokes the danger if one exists in medical need cases, conception is not a conscious choice but rather a assumed risk(except in rape cases)

in rape cases the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth(if you forced carrying to term) thus ending a alleged attack.

 

 

But the key is that the fetus did not create or provoke the danger, which is the cornerstone of self defense.  

 

What if the very fact of your rapist's child's existence causes just too much suffering?

 

Even if the continued attack theory is viable, is a person's mental anguish sufficient justification for murder of another person?  

Edited by bearrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

If I'm not mistaken, both Collins and Murkowski are pro choice republican senators. I suspect they won't allow anyone through who would even dream of overturning Roe.

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The list is so much longer than that.  

 

Also, you've committed my #1 grammar faux pas.  You do not have "a myriad of" something.  You have "myriad" something.  Please correct your usage in the future. :cheers:

 

I think abortion and gay marriage gets the focus when it comes to Kennedy because other than those two issues, he is a pretty reliable conservative vote.  You could replace him with a Scalia clone and still come out with the same result on Citizens United, gerrymandering, Voting rights act, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Even if the continued attack theory is viable, is a person's mental anguish sufficient justification for murder of another person?

 

It's enough for the removal of a clump of cells. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It's enough for the removal of a clump of cells. 

 

You and I agree because we don't think abortion is murder.  For those that do, how do they defend it in case of health or rape other than political expediency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

You and I agree because we don't think abortion is murder.  For those that do, how do they defend it in case of health or rape other than political expediency?

 

Probably just like you said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a prime example of what we are looking at. With a hardcore conservative 5-4 majority (and god forbid 6-3 if Ginsberg forgets to wear a sweater one day), any meaningful gun control legislation at a state level is likely going to be ruled unconstitutional under Heller. And that will be precedent for the next 40 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We'll see.  She has a history of saying one thing and voting another way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

The morher could just give it up to one of Trump’s concentration camps, I hear they have lots of those down in Texas.

 

 

In all seriousness, I think it’s a bit naive to just say “the mother is free to rid herself of the child after birth”.  It isn’t that easy I don’t think.

 

nothing about it is easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the things I dont understand, If something like Roe vs Wade has stood the test of time, through both Conservative and liberal SCOTUS how can it be subject to be overturned at the whim of a new set of justices?  Seems to to have already been decided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.