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

[User]

41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You are IGNORING the part of the Constitution which was the basis for RvW.

What am I ignoring? Be specific. 

[User]

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Only until the Republicons pass a national abortion ban and/or justices like Thomas manage find another new interpretation.

What legal reasoning to you think will support such a law being found to be Constitutional?

It's just more fear-mongering. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Let's get real. The 50 years of political strife and churn had NOTHING to do with the quality of Roe. The bible thumpers just can't abide a woman's right to choose. They believe they are on a divine mission, so they won't take no for an answer. If the right to abortion had been added as a crystal clear amendment it would have been challenged over and over again in the exact same way. 

Of course it had to do with the quality of Roe. The Court had to reinvent tests for the lower courts to apply continually. 

Roe V Wade was never an absolute right to abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. So... again, it was poorly written, even by whatever absurdity you want to exist. 

Again, I am not interested in your religious bigotry and the issue of abortion is not so clearly divided. It actually spans a lot of demographics for those who are and are not Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. 

But I guess you feel better getting your little jabs at religion in... 

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Instead billionaires bribe justices like Thomas and Alito to stay on the court.

Stacked is NOT "packing." Duh

Stacked is delaying appointment for MANY MONTHS to give it to the next POTUS.

No one has bribed Thomas. What an outrageous accusation with no proof. 

[West]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's nonsense.

But note, that you can't make the successful argument even if I stipulate that lumps of cells--without formed bodies, brains or any indication of sentience-- are people. 

I've already made a successful argument but you choose not to acknowledge that legislators curtail human behavior through legislation all the time. When your behavior impacts others its reasonable to believe there's a possibility that there will be legislation around it. 

I've 

1. Provided you examples of when your lack of action is punishable

2. Provided you with an example of how views about personhood have changed over time. One could also point to a variety of historical events that have shifted our understanding of personhood

You pick really some irrelevant detail to strawman the argument. 

Edited April 30 by West

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, User said:

What am I ignoring? Be specific. 

Weird how he didn't respond to that.

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, User said:

Of course it had to do with the quality of Roe. The Court had to reinvent tests for the lower courts to apply continually. 

Roe V Wade was never an absolute right to abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. So... again, it was poorly written, even by whatever absurdity you want to exist. 

Again, I am not interested in your religious bigotry and the issue of abortion is not so clearly divided. It actually spans a lot of demographics for those who are and are not Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. 

But I guess you feel better getting your little jabs at religion in... 

Lol. Come on. You know that's nonsense. The anti-choice movement has been driven almost entirely by evangelicals and Catholics. It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. 

I really don't care a whit about religious beliefs--until people start trying to turn their beliefs into legislation that affects me. Their fantasies don't hurt me until they try to inject them into my reality. 

Bad news for them politically though, in that non-religious people are even more invested in the outcome of the abortion debate and more pissed off about Roe. Hence why Trumps candidates in hostile states have been punished. 

538
Unaffiliated Americans are today overwhelmingly in agreement on abortion — even more so than white evangelicals. A new survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that 60 percent of white evangelical Christians believe that abortion becoming less available is a good thing for society — but a much larger percentage (78 percent) of unaffiliated Americans say this has been a negative development. And a Pew survey found last year that religiously unaffiliated Americans are much more united in support for legal abortion than white evangelicals are in opposition (84 percent vs. 74 percent, respectively). Recent polling also found that 65 percent of nonreligious Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them very well, a jump from 54 percent roughly a decade earlier. 

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, User said:

No one has bribed Thomas. What an outrageous accusation with no proof. 

Actually, it's pretty well documented that he accepts A LOT of lavish gifts from people with business before the court--and then neglects to even disclose it. Not to mention the entanglement with his wife's business.

Here's a lighter look at it.

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, West said:

I've already made a successful argument but you choose not to acknowledge that legislators curtail human behavior through legislation all the time. When your behavior impacts others its reasonable to believe there's a possibility that there will be legislation around it. 

I've 

1. Provided you examples of when your lack of action is punishable

2. Provided you with an example of how views about personhood have changed over time. One could also point to a variety of historical events that have shifted our understanding of personhood

You pick really some irrelevant detail to strawman the argument. 

1. I explained the clear and obvious difference to you. 

2. You may wish that you had done that, but you certainly haven't. (We pull the plug on vegetables all the time, BTW.)

3. Neither of those topics is relevant to the fact that this notion of fetal supremacy creates a supercitizen class while turning women into second-class citizens. 

Again, if you needed a transfusion to survive, would you support the state strapping your mother down and taking her blood against her will? Does the fact that she's female and furnished half of your DNA give you a greater claim on her body than she herself has?

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Actually, it's pretty well documented that he accepts A LOT of lavish gifts from people with business before the court--and then neglects to even disclose it. Not to mention the entanglement with his wife's business.

Here's a lighter look at it.

Actually, gifts are not bribes. Bribery has a very specific, nefarious meaning. Hanging out with your rich friend occasionally and having him pay the way is not a bribe. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Come on. You know that's nonsense. The anti-choice movement has been driven almost entirely by evangelicals and Catholics. It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. 

I really don't care a whit about religious beliefs--until people start trying to turn their beliefs into legislation that affects me. Their fantasies don't hurt me until they try to inject them into my reality. 

Bad news for them politically though, in that non-religious people are even more invested in the outcome of the abortion debate and more pissed off about Roe. Hence why Trumps candidates in hostile states have been punished. 

538
Unaffiliated Americans are today overwhelmingly in agreement on abortion — even more so than white evangelicals. A new survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that 60 percent of white evangelical Christians believe that abortion becoming less available is a good thing for society — but a much larger percentage (78 percent) of unaffiliated Americans say this has been a negative development. And a Pew survey found last year that religiously unaffiliated Americans are much more united in support for legal abortion than white evangelicals are in opposition (84 percent vs. 74 percent, respectively). Recent polling also found that 65 percent of nonreligious Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them very well, a jump from 54 percent roughly a decade earlier. 

 It is the Pro-Life movement, and my claim was not who was driving it but who identified as such.  Gallop polls have consistently shown that the issue is spread across key demographics from race, sex, age, education, and even religious and non-religious. 

You care enough about your bigoted views on religious belief that you feel compelled to drag it up in several of our discussions now. 

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. I explained the clear and obvious difference to you. 

2. You may wish that you had done that, but you certainly haven't. (We pull the plug on vegetables all the time, BTW.)

3. Neither of those topics is relevant to the fact that this notion of fetal supremacy creates a supercitizen class while turning women into second-class citizens. 

Again, if you needed a transfusion to survive, would you support the state strapping your mother down and taking her blood against her will? Does the fact that she's female and furnished half of your DNA give you a greater claim on her body than she herself has?

"Fetal supremacy".

A new term invented by Libbies. What does it mean? Well...Libbies try to argue that if a woman is denied an abortion, that the fetus is more important than the mother.

They're really upset that the SCOTUS returned abortion to the states. Yet...

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Now...each state can make its own mind up how to deal with this. Most states allow abortion up to the 3 to 4 month period. A few states allow abortion anytime and a few have banned the practice completely.

That is not only Constitutionally correct, but it's also an example of democracy in action.

Unless...of course...you believe your personal beliefs supercede the US Constitution. Which apparently you do.

Tell us again how Republicans are destroying democracy...

[West]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. I explained the clear and obvious difference to you. 

2. You may wish that you had done that, but you certainly haven't. (We pull the plug on vegetables all the time, BTW.)

3. Neither of those topics is relevant to the fact that this notion of fetal supremacy creates a supercitizen class while turning women into second-class citizens. 

Again, if you needed a transfusion to survive, would you support the state strapping your mother down and taking her blood against her will? Does the fact that she's female and furnished half of your DNA give you a greater claim on her body than she herself has?

3. No it doesn't. It just restores some dignity to humanity.

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, User said:

 It is the Pro-Life movement, and my claim was not who was driving it but who identified as such.  Gallop polls have consistently shown that the issue is spread across key demographics from race, sex, age, education, and even religious and non-religious. 

You care enough about your bigoted views on religious belief that you feel compelled to drag it up in several of our discussions now. 

Pro-life? Nah, they're not out protesting capitol punishment and they don't really care much what happens after birth. Anti-choice is more apt. 

"Spread across" sure. As in, it's not exclusively evangelicals and Catholics. But, again, it is a "movement" almost entirely driven by first Catholics and then later joined by evangelicals. That's not a controversial fact. You don't need to "debate" it. 

 

56 minutes ago, West said:

3. No it doesn't. It just restores some dignity to humanity.

So you still don't have an argument to make? Fair enough.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

"Fetal supremacy".

A new term invented by Libbies. What does it mean? Well...Libbies try to argue that if a woman is denied an abortion, that the fetus is more important than the mother.

They're really upset that the SCOTUS returned abortion to the states. Yet...

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Now...each state can make its own mind up how to deal with this. Most states allow abortion up to the 3 to 4 month period. A few states allow abortion anytime and a few have banned the practice completely.

That is not only Constitutionally correct, but it's also an example of democracy in action.

Unless...of course...you believe your personal beliefs supercede the US Constitution. Which apparently you do.

Tell us again how Republicans are destroying democracy...

In this nonsensical ramble you've managed to get just about everything wrong. Likely because you know nothing about our constitution and don't much care about democracy. But even at a basic level you should understand that the SCOTUS making an unpopular decision that allows states to deny women basic privacy and physical autonomy has nothing to do with democracy. 

And my "personal beliefs" are that these decisions should be between a woman and her health care provider. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But don't force your views on others. That's what it means to be pro choice.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

In this nonsensical ramble you've managed to get just about everything wrong. Likely because you know nothing about our constitution and don't much care about democracy. But even at a basic level you should understand that the SCOTUS making an unpopular decision that allows states to deny women basic privacy and physical autonomy has nothing to do with democracy. 

And my "personal beliefs" are that these decisions should be between a woman and her health care provider. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But don't force your views on others. That's what it means to be pro choice.

Not democracy? What chicken sh1t.

Did the American people elect a republican POTUS? Yes. Did that republican POTUS campaign on placing conservative judges on the SCOTUS? Yes. Is that how a democracy is supposed to work? Yes.

Now why don't you stop your continuous lies and just face facts. Women can still get their wombs cleared. There are, in most cases, reasonable restrictions that the vast majority of people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE OCEAN find humane and acceptable.

Your preoccupation with this non-issue is silly and childish. If you're so upset about how the US constitution and real democracy work...

I'm sure you can leave without any problems.

[West]

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Pro-life? Nah, they're not out protesting capitol punishment and they don't really care much what happens after birth. Anti-choice is more apt. 

"Spread across" sure. As in, it's not exclusively evangelicals and Catholics. But, again, it is a "movement" almost entirely driven by first Catholics and then later joined by evangelicals. That's not a controversial fact. You don't need to "debate" it. 

 

So you still don't have an argument to make? Fair enough.

You are the one yammering on about some super human rights or something. 

The ultimate in any human services profession is the preservation of life. If we can't even agree with that concept society is lost.

Anyway this is counterproductive. Have a good day

Edited May 1 by West

[User]

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Pro-life? Nah, they're not out protesting capitol punishment and they don't really care much what happens after birth. Anti-choice is more apt. 

"Spread across" sure. As in, it's not exclusively evangelicals and Catholics. But, again, it is a "movement" almost entirely driven by first Catholics and then later joined by evangelicals. That's not a controversial fact. You don't need to "debate" it. 

 

So you still don't have an argument to make? Fair enough.

Oh, I see. So, if you are "Pro-Choice" then you must also support choice in all things... like school choice?

Or maybe, the terminology is in regard to abortion and the status of the unborn child being a human life with a right to life. Did you already forget your big speech about kindness and tolerance and respect? You want everyone else to play along with a persons fantasy role play trying to be something they are not... but you can't even do the same here yourself. 

No, it is not even a matter of just not being exclusive. We are talking about significant spreads. About 50/50 Men women... etc... 

[Hodad]

50 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not democracy? What chicken sh1t.

Did the American people elect a republican POTUS? Yes. Did that republican POTUS campaign on placing conservative judges on the SCOTUS? Yes. Is that how a democracy is supposed to work? Yes.

Now why don't you stop your continuous lies and just face facts. Women can still get their wombs cleared. There are, in most cases, reasonable restrictions that the vast majority of people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE OCEAN find humane and acceptable.

Your preoccupation with this non-issue is silly and childish. If you're so upset about how the US constitution and real democracy work...

I'm sure you can leave without any problems.

Lol. So what you're saying now is that anything the government does is inherently democratic because people voted on representatives who were somehow involved at some stage of the process. Okay. 🙄I'll hold you to that.

[Hodad]

25 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, I see. So, if you are "Pro-Choice" then you must also support choice in all things... like school choice?

Or maybe, the terminology is in regard to abortion and the status of the unborn child being a human life with a right to life. Did you already forget your big speech about kindness and tolerance and respect? You want everyone else to play along with a persons fantasy role play trying to be something they are not... but you can't even do the same here yourself. 

No, it is not even a matter of just not being exclusive. We are talking about significant spreads. About 50/50 Men women... etc... 

Oh, yeah. I'm definitely pro school choice. Send your kid wherever you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it. 

A fetus is not a person with a right to anything, but even if we stipulate that they are for the sake of debate, their rights cannot reasonably supersede the rights of the women. There is no logical argument to make the unborn a special class of citizen--and certainly none within our constitution, which does not recognize the unborn as citizens. 

Can I ask just a basic logic question? When I say that the movement is almost entirely driven by evangelicals and Catholics, you have TWICE now listed the involvement of men and women as a counterpoint. Why are you doing this? Are you under the impression that evangelicals and Catholics are not men and women? WTF is going on here?

[User]

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Oh, yeah. I'm definitely pro school choice. Send your kid wherever you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it. 

Now, you are being obtuse. School Choice is clearly a term used to describe choice in publicly funded education opportunities, like vouchers, tax credits, or things like education savings accounts... But let's play. If that is your take on choice, don't expect people who choose something else to have to continue to pay for public schools either. Fair? Or... we just stop funding public education all together, let people choose to do as they please? If you are opposed to paying for public education, lets take you at your word, we won't fund it at all. 

 

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

A fetus is not a person....

I see you are a believer in the magic birth canal. 

 

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Can I ask just a basic logic question? When I say that the movement is almost entirely driven by evangelicals and Catholics, you have TWICE now listed the involvement of men and women as a counterpoint. Why are you doing this? Are you under the impression that evangelicals and Catholics are not men and women? WTF is going on here?

You said: "It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. "

My response was to point out that those who identify with being Pro-Life are, in fact, a wonderfully diverse cross-section of American life. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Lol. So what you're saying now is that anything the government does is inherently democratic because people voted on representatives who were somehow involved at some stage of the process. Okay. 🙄I'll hold you to that.

Do so. And I'll feel free to do the same.

Edited May 1 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Now, you are being obtuse. School Choice is clearly a term used to describe choice in publicly funded education opportunities, like vouchers, tax credits, or things like education savings accounts... But let's play. If that is your take on choice, don't expect people who choose something else to have to continue to pay for public schools either. Fair? Or... we just stop funding public education all together, let people choose to do as they please? If you are opposed to paying for public education, lets take you at your word, we won't fund it at all. 

 

I see you are a believer in the magic birth canal. 

 

You said: "It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. "

My response was to point out that those who identify with being Pro-Life are, in fact, a wonderfully diverse cross-section of American life. 

Love the clip.

[Hodad]

14 hours ago, User said:

Actually, gifts are not bribes. Bribery has a very specific, nefarious meaning. Hanging out with your rich friend occasionally and having him pay the way is not a bribe. 

 

Sure. No big deal.

"Hey, Clarence, here's a quarter of a million dollars. But remember to vote your conscience in court!"

"Okay, but I won't disclose this massive gift, just because it's so casual, you know?"

Who could have a problem with that?!?🤪

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Sure. No big deal.

"Hey, Clarence, here's a quarter of a million dollars. But remember to vote your conscience in court!"

"Okay, but I won't disclose this massive gift, just because it's so casual, you know?"

Who could have a problem with that?!?🤪

That isn't what happened though. We are talking about his rich friend taking him on vacation... you know, stuff like jets, yachts, and resorts are just expenses for the trip. 

What does that do to "bribe" him to do anything? Answer: Nothing. 

You can't support your case, all you can do is ask speculative rhetorical questions. 

Edited May 1 by User