The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Wel robo-bot...since you're not concerned about voter fraud, none of the tightened measures should bother you.

You're not making ANY sense. Republicons have long exploited "tightened measures" to suppress the vote.

Esp with LONG LINES in particular neighborhoods. But you wouldn't know ANYTHING about that since you're not an American.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, West said:

I think we are all tired of Democrats abusing the legal system to impose an agenda that they wouldn't otherwise be able to push if it came to a vote

Too bad you have NO EVIDENCE that the legal system is being abused, except by Trump when he was POTUS, and demanded that the DoJ send letters to states falsely claiming massive voter fraud. Fortunately Barr was too honest to obey.

5 hours ago, West said:

Roe was unconstitutional. Prime example of Democrats abusing the legal system

It WAS Constitutional for over 50 years before Trump and McConnell stacked the court with their shenanigans.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...poor Libbie.

The majority of Americans believe that election was fraudulent. 

History will note Brandon's term as a failure and fraudulent.

You never heard of appeal to popularity FALLACY? LMAO

Or just don't understand what FALLACY means.

The ONLY reason you MAGA RUBES believe that is cause Trump TOLD YOU and you're dumb enough to believe a pathological LIAR.

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, it wasn't. This wonky court may have a different opinion, but it's silly to say that R v. W was unconstitutional.

And this ties back neatly to our conversation about Christian nationalism. Alito's opinion was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma rather than reasoned jurisprudence or a conception of individual rights.

Alito citing 16th century British witch burners was a HUGE EMBARRASSMENT for HIM.

Edited April 30 by robosmith

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, User said:

It is not silly to say it was unconstitutional, it is simply a statement of fact:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Please tell us exactly which part you think was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma. It was also a 6 to 3 ruling, it was not just Alitos opinion. 

Alito citing 16th century British witch burners to overturn a decision which was established precedent for over 50 years.

2 hours ago, West said:

It was unconstitutional. Even far left RBG said it would be overturned due to flawed logic. 

A prime example of Democrats legislating from the bench. Same with obergafell

RBG never said she would vote to overturn it. Duh

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

Where in the constitution do you have a right to murder a child in the womb? 

No where in the Constitution does it say a fetus is a "child in the womb." You and your MAGA CULT just made that up.

[robosmith]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Seeing that they are the foremost authority on what is or is not constitutional, their edicts are the determination. Now, you can certainly disagree and think they got it wrong, but the reality is that it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

It's funny that you argue that the Constitution has not changed. That was their point. Roe v. Wade was the change; it never existed when the Constitution was written. 

So... let's do the math: the Constitution without Roe V Wade has existed longer than with it. 

Overturning based on 16th century witch burning British jurists just shows how desperate and ridiculous that decision was.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol, no, a majority of Americans DO NOT believe the election was fraudulent. Did you pull that little nugget out of your own ass, or dig it out of Trump's leavings?

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/new_peer-reviewed_research_finds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html#!

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're not making ANY sense. Republicons have long exploited "tightened measures" to suppress the vote.

Esp with LONG LINES in particular neighborhoods. But you wouldn't know ANYTHING about that since you're not an American.

Poor Libbie. You don't know whether to sh1t or get off the pot.

It must be terrible to have to talk out both sides of your mouth.

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, User said:

Seeing that they are the foremost authority on what is or is not constitutional, their edicts are the determination. Now, you can certainly disagree and think they got it wrong, but the reality is that it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

It's funny that you argue that the Constitution has not changed. That was their point. Roe v. Wade was the change; it never existed when the Constitution was written. 

So... let's do the math: the Constitution without Roe V Wade has existed longer than with it. 

 

Yes, it is today. It wasn't then. 

And that was one of Alito's points, but it's an entirely specious one. This court is guilty of egregious cherry picking. Not only did they wildly disrupt a longstanding status quo--which they all indicated they would not do during confirmation--but they did so so selectively as to remove all doubt about the religious motive underlying the change. Stare decisis? What's that!?! They could, almost shot for shot, apply Alito's shoddy reasoning to a whole trove of conservative darlings, but they won't, because this was never about reason. 

SCOTUS has never been infallible, but for most of its history it's managed to remain somewhat above the political fray. It was smart and deliberate and thoughtful and fair. Well, the shine is off that apple. Poor Roberts, despite his efforts, presides over a tattered shadow of an institution full of naked prejudice. Just one more institution Trump turned to crap. 

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, it is today. It wasn't then. 

And that was one of Alito's points, but it's an entirely specious one. This court is guilty of egregious cherry picking. Not only did they wildly disrupt a longstanding status quo--which they all indicated they would not do during confirmation--but they did so so selectively as to remove all doubt about the religious motive underlying the change. Stare decisis? What's that!?! They could, almost shot for shot, apply Alito's shoddy reasoning to a whole trove of conservative darlings, but they won't, because this was never about reason. 

SCOTUS has never been infallible, but for most of its history it's managed to remain somewhat above the political fray. It was smart and deliberate and thoughtful and fair. Well, the shine is off that apple. Poor Roberts, despite his efforts, presides over a tattered shadow of an institution full of naked prejudice. Just one more institution Trump turned to crap. 

Gee...guess it was a "bad" idea to attack the judges the way you did...huh?

M0rons...

[West]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

The construction is a charter of negative rights. Nowhere does it say what you can do, Rather it is focused on what the state cannot do to you. It says you have rights to certain things that are inviolable by the state. But were in the Constitution does a non-citizen fetus have the right to the body, blood and tissue of a female citizen? 

It's great if a woman chooses to give of herself to grow a child. I'm certainly grateful to my mother. But it's a gift, not an obligation, and when a woman chooses not to give of herself then respect that decision. Don't enslave her, violate her privacy and sovereignty on behalf of a non-person, non-citizen. Don't elevate the possibility of a person above the interests of an actual person. That's just nuts. There's no logical way to arrive at that position. It's purely on faith. 

Warped view. 

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

No where in the Constitution does it say a fetus is a "child in the womb." You and your MAGA CULT just made that up.

Same argument the Democrats used to institutionalize slavery

[West]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

Too bad you have NO EVIDENCE that the legal system is being abused, except by Trump when he was POTUS, and demanded that the DoJ send letters to states falsely claiming massive voter fraud. Fortunately Barr was too honest to obey.

It WAS Constitutional for over 50 years before Trump and McConnell stacked the court with their shenanigans.

They never stacked the court. They controlled the necessary branches of government to get it done.

Packing the court would be bidens threat to create new SC seats just because he doesn't like how they rule or trying to bribe SC justices to resign.

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, West said:

Warped view. 

Same argument the Democrats used to institutionalize slavery

By "warped view" you mean you can't muster a counterargument. It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way. If this court were actually bothered by an expansive right to privacy they should  be shitting themselves over the invention of this superclass.  But, as I said, Dobbs didn't come from a place of reason. 

 

[User]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

Alito citing 16th century British witch burners to overturn a decision which was established precedent for over 50 years.

 

The Majority Opinion was about 70 pages long, not including the appendixes. The purpose of citing Sir Matthew Hale took up less than a sentence to only illustrate the common law nature of abortion laws. Instead of dealing with that fact, you make this pathetic play at discrediting a source... when that was never even the point of citing that particular source. 

And as I already pointed out, Roe V Wade was not an established precedent for the 180+ years before...  

[User]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

By "warped view" you mean you can't muster a counterargument. It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way. If this court were actually bothered by an expansive right to privacy they should  be shitting themselves over the invention of this superclass.  But, as I said, Dobbs didn't come from a place of reason. 

 

Where do you get any "fetal supremacy" notion from?

This is just a strawman argument. The Dobbs v Jackson ruling created no such thing. It pushed the abortion decision back to the states to be regulated. States like California and other left-wing run states are free (and doing so now) to open up abortion rights to their hearts content. 

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Where do you get any "fetal supremacy" notion from?

This is just a strawman argument. The Dobbs v Jackson ruling created no such thing. It pushed the abortion decision back to the states to be regulated. States like California and other left-wing run states are free (and doing so now) to open up abortion rights to their hearts content. 

I didn't suggest that Dobbs created fetal supremacy. I said that they were wrong to strip citizens of protection from states who would impose fetal supremacy upon its citizens. The constitution and the court exist to protect citizens from state overreach. And severe restrictions on abortion are nothing if not extreme overreach.  

[User]

49 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, it is today. It wasn't then. 

And that was one of Alito's points, but it's an entirely specious one. This court is guilty of egregious cherry picking. Not only did they wildly disrupt a longstanding status quo--which they all indicated they would not do during confirmation--but they did so so selectively as to remove all doubt about the religious motive underlying the change. Stare decisis? What's that!?! They could, almost shot for shot, apply Alito's shoddy reasoning to a whole trove of conservative darlings, but they won't, because this was never about reason. 

SCOTUS has never been infallible, but for most of its history it's managed to remain somewhat above the political fray. It was smart and deliberate and thoughtful and fair. Well, the shine is off that apple. Poor Roberts, despite his efforts, presides over a tattered shadow of an institution full of naked prejudice. Just one more institution Trump turned to crap. 

It was not then... when? Roe V Wade did not exist at the writing of the Constitution or for another 180+ years after. 

The Court is not guilty of cherry-picking. Since Roe V Wade, they have had to constantly delve into it since then because it was such an awful ruling. 

Besides, we are straying from the point anyhow... you and I can relitigate Dobbs v Jackson for the rest of our lives. Folks on the Pro-Life side have been pointing out how awful Roe V Wade was for 50 years. So, I wish you the best of luck (not really)

My point here was to simply say that your notion that it is not Constitutional to overturn Roe V Wade is just silly nonsense. 

[West]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

By "warped view" you mean you can't muster a counterargument. It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way. If this court were actually bothered by an expansive right to privacy they should  be shitting themselves over the invention of this superclass.  But, as I said, Dobbs didn't come from a place of reason. 

 

No I mean it's messed up. 

Again, it's the same argument that was used by democrats to justify slavery. 

1 minute ago, User said:

It was not then... when? Roe V Wade did not exist at the writing of the Constitution or for another 180+ years after. 

The Court is not guilty of cherry-picking. Since Roe V Wade, they have had to constantly delve into it since then because it was such an awful ruling. 

Besides, we are straying from the point anyhow... you and I can relitigate Dobbs v Jackson for the rest of our lives. Folks on the Pro-Life side have been pointing out how awful Roe V Wade was for 50 years. So, I wish you the best of luck (not really)

My point here was to simply say that your notion that it is not Constitutional to overturn Roe V Wade is just silly nonsense. 

Exactly and he's also mischaracterizing what the recent ruling meant anyway. They didn't "ban abortion" they returned the decision making to states elected officials. Much the same way as state driving laws

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I didn't suggest that Dobbs created fetal supremacy. I said that they were wrong to strip citizens of protection from states who would impose fetal supremacy upon its citizens. The constitution and the court exist to protect citizens from state overreach. And severe restrictions on abortion are nothing if not extreme overreach.  

Well, no, you did not say that at all. You made no mention of states. No, the Constitution explicitly protects certain inalienable rights, including the state's right to make laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly protects abortion. 

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, User said:

It was not then... when? Roe V Wade did not exist at the writing of the Constitution or for another 180+ years after. 

The Court is not guilty of cherry-picking. Since Roe V Wade, they have had to constantly delve into it since then because it was such an awful ruling. 

Besides, we are straying from the point anyhow... you and I can relitigate Dobbs v Jackson for the rest of our lives. Folks on the Pro-Life side have been pointing out how awful Roe V Wade was for 50 years. So, I wish you the best of luck (not really)
 

When? Jeebus. When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, as established by the SCOTUS it was not unconstitutional. It was, in my view, not unconstitutional at the time of the drafting or now. The current court sees things differently, and they are empowered to create law through their interpretation. The court defines what is constitutional and those opinions have the force of law.

That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Roe was unconstitutional. Well, no, it wasn't. This court thinks that it is currently, but it wasn't at the time. <-- This conversation, by the way, is the whole point of stare decisis. Instead of a steady constitution we have the whimsy of the court, blown by political winds. It undermines the entire notion of constitutionality, and doubly so when it turns back the clock against the general will of the governed. I mean, Clarence Thomas, of all people, has already set his sights on Loving and Lawrence based on the Dobbs nonsense. --  What's next? Overturning Brown v. Board of Education? I mean, geez, that's only been the law of the land for 70-ish years. Won't that Make America Great Again? 🙄 

 

Quote

My point here was to simply say that your notion that it is not Constitutional to overturn Roe V Wade is just silly nonsense. 

I did not say it was unconstitutional to overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded to a poster who said the the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional. Which is a silly statement when the definers of constitutionality defined it as constitutional.

[Hodad]

18 minutes ago, User said:

Well, no, you did not say that at all. You made no mention of states. No, the Constitution explicitly protects certain inalienable rights, including the state's right to make laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly protects abortion. 

Through the power of quoting, I compel thee...

"It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way." 

And you are misusing the term "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights refer to rights reserved for the people, those which shall not be alienated by state law. In other words, protection from the laws of the state. The inalienable rights in the 14th amendment were the foundation of Roe, BTW. It might have been better rooted in equal protection than privacy (which is usually my argument) but in either approach the SCOTUS was right to protect women from an overreaching state. 

[Hodad]

44 minutes ago, West said:

 

Again, it's the same argument that was used by democrats to justify slavery. 

 

 

No, its' not. Not even remotely. And you can't articulate such an argument. 

In fact, you've got it quite backward. States that restrict abortion enslave women on behalf of the elevated, superior fetus. 

 

Quote

Exactly and he's also mischaracterizing what the recent ruling meant anyway. They didn't "ban abortion" they returned the decision making to states elected officials. Much the same way as state driving laws

Again, no. You are blatantly misrepresenting me. I said nothing of the sort. 

Edited April 30 by Hodad

[West]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, its' not. Not even remotely. And you can't articulate such an argument. 

In fact, you've got it quite backward. States that restrict abortion enslave women on behalf of the elevated, superior fetus. 

 

 

There's already laws that states you can't starve a child to death for example. This is not "oppressive to women" its just human decency to not intentionally harm a vulnerable human being. I just view life as beginning at conception thus its the responsibility of the mother to nurture the child begins in the womb and you cannot end its life. 

And yes it is. They justified slavery by claiming they were half human or whatever

Edited April 30 by West

[User]

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

When? Jeebus. When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, as established by the SCOTUS it was not unconstitutional. It was, in my view, not unconstitutional at the time of the drafting or now. The current court sees things differently, and they are empowered to create law through their interpretation. The court defines what is constitutional and those opinions have the force of law.

That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Roe was unconstitutional. Well, no, it wasn't. This court thinks that it is currently, but it wasn't at the time. <-- This conversation, by the way, is the whole point of stare decisis. Instead of a steady constitution we have the whimsy of the court, blown by political winds. It undermines the entire notion of constitutionality, and doubly so when it turns back the clock against the general will of the governed. I mean, Clarence Thomas, of all people, has already set his sights on Loving and Lawrence based on the Dobbs nonsense. --  What's next? Overturning Brown v. Board of Education? I mean, geez, that's only been the law of the land for 70-ish years. Won't that Make America Great Again? 🙄 

Well great! I am glad we could finally agree that it is constitutional to overturn Roe v Wade. 

So, now you are a big Dredd Scott supporter?

Stare Decisis is a solid rule of thumb, not an absolute. Roe V Wade was one of the most overarching and egregious rulings in the Supreme Court's history. It went on to define generations of angst, hate, and discontent with the ruling, as well as numerous other rulings that had to be fixed as it was continually challenged in Court. 

 

 

[User]

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Through the power of quoting, I compel thee...

"It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way." 

And you are misusing the term "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights refer to rights reserved for the people, those which shall not be alienated by state law. In other words, protection from the laws of the state. The inalienable rights in the 14th amendment were the foundation of Roe, BTW. It might have been better rooted in equal protection than privacy (which is usually my argument) but in either approach the SCOTUS was right to protect women from an overreaching state. 

I missed that. My apologies.