Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

Just now, BeaverFever said:

No it was Republicans who brought up who can pee in Which bathroom and tried to dictate special rules

Also its Congress that approves spending, genius. And Obama was stuck with an obstructionist Congress that publicly and openly bragged that they block all Obama/Dem proposals even the routine normal ones for no reason other than just to own the libs. 

On the gay cake thing:  Funny that you think companies should have the right to deny service to gay people but not to unmasked or unvaccinated people during a contagious disease pandemic 

Oh yes it's Republicans fault because Barry couldn't pass laws and relied on the court instead. 

Companies can deny business to whoever they want. The free market will decide if their policy is a good thing or not. It's when government interferes in the shop owner's right to serve unmasked individuals and forces them to be mask police that there's issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, West said:

Very strange:

The rights that are enshrined in the US constitution I.e states rights to pass their own laws, the 2nd ammendment the leftists don't support

Rights not enshrined in the US constitution I.e baby murder they do support. 

Down is up, up is down with these folks. And they claim Republicans are damaging institutions...

Only according to your selective interpretation of the constitution where guns have more rights than women 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, West said:

Oh yes it's Republicans fault because Barry couldn't pass laws and relied on the court instead. 

Companies can deny business to whoever they want. The free market will decide if their policy is a good thing or not. It's when government interferes in the shop owner's right to serve unmasked individuals and forces them to be mask police that there's issues

So you think companies have the right to put up a sign that says “no blacks allowed”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Only according to your selective interpretation of the constitution where guns have more rights than women 

Show me the specific line in the constitution where women can kill their unborn child in utero  

Article 10 protects the state's rights to pass their own law. The federal government is not a superior level of government

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

So you think companies have the right to put up a sign that says “no blacks allowed”?

Do you think a Jewish baker should have to make a cake with a swastika on it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, West said:

Show me the specific line in the constitution where women can kill their unborn child in utero  

Article 10 protects the state's rights to pass their own law. The federal government is not a superior level of government

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Show me the specific line where it says there’s a right to an “AR-15” or “concealed carry permit”

 

A half century of legal precedent has repeatedly ruled that 14th amendment, protects citizens private lives from state regulation  a state law that forces a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will without considering her individual circumstances (ie due process) deprives her of her life and liberty especially when the pregnancy is a threat to her health or life. Note that the 14th amendment also clearly state the rights apply to people who are actually born  

see below, added emphasis mine:

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that’s right beaver.  The Constitution makes no provision for abortions.  But it does make provisions for guns.  Lots and lots of guns.

And since we’ve started another page in this thread, it behooves me to once again appreciate the foresight of Donald J Trump and his Scotus picks.  A moment of silence, everyone, and hats off.  You in the 4th row, hats off.

 

D7FECB2B-157C-486C-B770-C2C3C15F6ABD.jpeg

Edited by sharkman
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Show me the specific line where it says there’s a right to an “AR-15” or “concealed carry permit”

 

A half century of legal precedent has repeatedly ruled that 14th amendment, protects citizens private lives from state regulation  a state law that forces a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will without considering her individual circumstances (ie due process) deprives her of her life and liberty especially when the pregnancy is a threat to her health or life. Note that the 14th amendment also clearly state the rights apply to people who are actually born  

see below, added emphasis mine:

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second ammendment guarantees your right to bare arms. Some states (and for that matter the feds) have put in laws to curtail everything from automatic weapons to magazine capacity. The validity of said laws can be challenged under s. 14 of the constitution. 

As for abortion, the States can make their own law and the court determines whether or not each law is constitutional provided there are real cases... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, West said:

Do you think a Jewish baker should have to make a cake with a swastika on it? 

What a terrible and stupid comparison.  We have anti-hate laws specifically for that. Simply being a gay customer is not at all the same thing as being a Nazi and advocating hatred 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1.  Par for the course, Republican senate candidate arrested after attacking black woman and punching her in the head multiple times at anti-abortion rally. And….he also happens to he an off-duty cop. But they’re not anti-woman and I’m sure he’s a fine and totally unbiased police officer when he’s on duty  🙄

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3537210-rhode-island-state-senate-candidate-suspends-campaign-after-video-shows-him-hitting-opponent-at-protest/amp/

 

2.  Every single Republican SC Justice vowed not to overturn Roe v Wade during their respective confirmation hearings. So I guess they’re liars in addition to be being Republican stooges

 

3.  Donald Trump  in 1999: ‘I am Very Pro-Choice’

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp-video/mmvo43407429521

1) The link that you provided doesn't work, and a Google search for video comes up with nothing. One of them shows a black guy punching another black guy. 

Your opinion on the issue is also a blatant display of your own misogyny. What difference does it make if it's a man and a woman? They're consenting adults. They can fight if they want to. If she gets too mouthy, she can punched, just like a guy, right? 

Try to done down your hatred towards women next time you post here, this isn't retroglotics.

2) Do you have proof of what you're saying? My guess is that they said something about the abortion which you misinterpret to your own satisfaction. And I'm not really guessing, I know you well enough by now.

3) I think that 95% of Americans are "very pro-choice", within reason. Late-term and post-viability abortions of healthy babies by healthy moms is disgusting though. There's not much difference between the abortion of an 8-month-old fetus and the murder of a 1-month-old baby. In a lot of instances the 8-month-old fetus is more developed, when you compare it to a preemie baby. 

Laws that Democrats are making, which completely strip unborn of any human rights at all, are thoroughly disgusting. If someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach in those states and the baby dies, is it not murder then? Is it the same when the punched-to-death baby comes out as if she just had a tumour fall out? It has no human rights, correct? So it's like a tumour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, West said:

As for abortion, the States can make their own law and the court determines whether or not each law is constitutional provided there are real cases... 

so you admit there are constitutional protections for abortion. What you describe is exactly what Roe v Wade did. States already can make their own laws and Roe decided what is and is not constitutional 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So you think companies have the right to put up a sign that says “no blacks allowed”?

Do you think that churches, universities and companies have the right to put up a sign that says “no whites allowed”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

) The link that you provided doesn't work, and a Google search for video comes up with nothing. One of them shows a black guy punching another black guy. 

Link works for me and the vile Republican who was arrested is definitely not black. 
 

image.thumb.jpeg.bd2ad8759b52aebe4b4533a1ecbf5a13.jpeg
 

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Late-term and post-viability abortions of healthy babies by healthy moms

Is mostly a made up lie by Republicans that doesn’t really happen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What a terrible and stupid comparison.  We have anti-hate laws specifically for that. Simply being a gay customer is not at all the same thing as being a Nazi and advocating hatred 

It's not terrible and stupid at all. The Azov battalion, which you fully support, is a Nazi organization through and through. 

Why can't someone get a cake made for a military unit that you fully support? 

What do anti-hate laws have to do with supporting your favourite military unit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger question is why. The eternal why. Why reintroduce a divisive issue that can never be settled into the mainstream dialogue. All this does is pull people further apart. 

Why, you bastard.

So that you people, all of us, are duped once again into being at each other’s throats, rather than confronting real issues: the failure of our leadership. 

Machiavelli would be proud.

Now ask yourself, as a Candian, who is trying to use this story to win political points for themselves? Who is speaking out of line? Who has something to say when nothing need be said? That one is the divider among us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Link works for me and the vile Republican who was arrested is definitely not black. 
 

image.thumb.jpeg.bd2ad8759b52aebe4b4533a1ecbf5a13.jpeg
 

Is mostly a made up lie by Republicans that doesn’t really happen 

"Vile" lol. Most demonrats actually should get punched. Schiff if the most punchable loser on the planet.

1) Dude that's a still photo, not a video. 

2) How is it "mostly" a made up lie ffs? It's either a lie or it's true. Is it partly true if I say that I have a 20" penis? 

 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you think that churches, universities and companies have the right to put up a sign that says “no whites allowed”?

Universities and companies no.  My understanding is that churches are allowed to because by their very nature they are exclusive and not open to the general public  

And since I know where you are going with this, “affirmative action” is not “no whites allowed”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

so you admit there are constitutional protections for abortion. What you describe is exactly what Roe v Wade did. States already can make their own laws and Roe decided what is and is not constitutional 

No I'm not admitting that at all. The Roe decision was activist judges overstepping. 

By your logic I can claim my rights to liberty is being violated because I can't speed down the freeway 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What a terrible and stupid comparison.  We have anti-hate laws specifically for that. Simply being a gay customer is not at all the same thing as being a Nazi and advocating hatred 

What about an atheist? Should they be court mandated to write "Jesus is the only way to heaven" on a cake for a Christian get together?

So basically what you are saying is you only want the state to weigh in on issues YOU agree with. 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Universities and companies no.  

So get angry. Go throw some molotov cocktails, loot some stores, burn down some businesses, assault and murder some people, in a 'mostly peaceful way'. 

Quote

My understanding is that churches are allowed to because by their very nature they are exclusive and not open to the general public  

My understanding is that racism is racism, and that people who do racist things are racists. I'm pretty sure that I'm correct and you're playing hypocritical limbo/Twister like a greasy champ. 

Quote

And since I know where you are going with this, “affirmative action” is not “no whites allowed”

When have I ever talked about 'affirmative action'? I talk about actual racism, not fake racism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not terrible and stupid at all. The Azov battalion, which you fully support, is a Nazi organization through and through. 

Why can't someone get a cake made for a military unit that you fully support? 

What do anti-hate laws have to do with supporting your favourite military unit? 

You guys are getting stupider and stupider. What a dumbass question.
 

First I don’t fully support the Azov batallion. I support Ukraine. If China invaded Canada I imagine Canadian nazi groups would fight against China as would you. That doesn’t make you pro-nazi.  
 

Second even if I did support Azov battalion for some strange reason  that still wouldn’t mean I support people being forced to make hate material against their will. Only a complete Republican moron would think two subjects have anything to do with each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, West said:

Oh yes it's Republicans fault because Barry couldn't pass laws and relied on the court instead. 

Companies can deny business to whoever they want. The free market will decide if their policy is a good thing or not. It's when government interferes in the shop owner's right to serve unmasked individuals and forces them to be mask police that there's issues

There have been 5 Republican presidents since 1973 who didn’t mess with Roe v Wade. 
 

Public health orders aren’t about rights, they are about public health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, West said:

No I'm not admitting that at all. The Roe decision was activist judges overstepping. 

By your logic I can claim my rights to liberty is being violated because I can't speed down the freeway 

Yeah because abortion and speeding are the same thing. How fucking dumb is your argument. The courts decide what limits are reasonable and what isnt and they have repeatedly ruled that being forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth against your will is a significant infringement on life and liberty especially when it puts the mothers own life is at risk.
 

Whereas any intelligent person can understand that being forced to drive at a slower speed under threat of small fine is clearly not an infringement on your liberty that violates the constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There have been 5 Republican presidents since 1973 who didn’t mess with Roe v Wade. 
 

Public health orders aren’t about rights, they are about public health.

Probably because it's been 5-4 liberal activists vs. Originalists on the SC.. 

Barry politicized the court more than any other president in us history.. a litmus test for liberal causes... thats why loons like Hirono ask some vile questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...