GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

zymurgy said:
how silly. a really nice compromise is to let states decide - and when people can't get the state to see as they see it - to allow them to freely move elsewhere

that is a really nice compromise!
Click to expand...

To me, that's extreme.

The pro life side always makes it sound super-easy to pack up and move, or get time off from work to travel to another state for an abortion, or to carry a fetus to term and give birth and figure all of that out. Oh, and of course, women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

These are complex & complicated issues, with big life ramifications riding on the decisions. I like your posts - but the above is too casual & not befitting of how serious this issue is for many.
 
BartenderElite said:
To me, that's extreme.

The pro life side always makes it sound super-easy to pack up and move, or get time off from work to travel to another state for an abortion, or to carry a fetus to term and give birth and figure all of that out. Oh, and of course, women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

These are complex & complicated issues, with big life ramifications riding on the decisions. I like your posts - but the above is too casual & not befitting of how serious this issue is for many.
Click to expand...

extreme is letting unelected men in robes change the rules 175 years after powers were defined and consented to

I am in no way anxious top make it easy and convenient to take a life either.
 
zymurgy said:
extreme is letting unelected men in robes change the rules 175 years after powers were defined and consented to
Click to expand...

Women had very few rights in general for much of American history. I have no problem w/ the courts trying to change that. Women are still fighting for equality, in 2022.
 
BartenderElite said:
Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.
Click to expand...

There is no right to murder babies.
 
BartenderElite said:
To me, that's extreme.

The pro life side always makes it sound super-easy to pack up and move, or get time off from work to travel to another state for an abortion, or to carry a fetus to term and give birth and figure all of that out. Oh, and of course, women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

These are complex & complicated issues, with big life ramifications riding on the decisions. I like your posts - but the above is too casual & not befitting of how serious this issue is for many.
Click to expand...

How about use protection and/or put the kid up for adoption? Actions have consequences.
 
BartenderElite said:
To me, that's extreme.

The pro life side always makes it sound super-easy to pack up and move, or get time off from work to travel to another state for an abortion, or to carry a fetus to term and give birth and figure all of that out. Oh, and of course, women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

These are complex & complicated issues, with big life ramifications riding on the decisions. I like your posts - but the above is too casual & not befitting of how serious this issue is for many.
Click to expand...

Since it is your religion to murder your own offspring, you can go to a region where that practice is accepted.
 
BartenderElite said:
To me, that's extreme.

The pro life side always makes it sound super-easy to pack up and move, or get time off from work to travel to another state for an abortion, or to carry a fetus to term and give birth and figure all of that out. Oh, and of course, women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

These are complex & complicated issues, with big life ramifications riding on the decisions. I like your posts - but the above is too casual & not befitting of how serious this issue is for many.
Click to expand...

Let's see if you can follow my train of thought here. What was the goal behind the following actions:

In some jurisdictions, restrictions on gun ownership ranging from registration and draconian taxation to outright bans.

The price of a single PACK of cigarettes in NYC is over $14

Obama saying "under my plan, energy costs will necessarily sky rocket"

pResident tater head basically castrating the American fossil fuel industry the first couple of days of his (stolen) term.

The common thread is, all of these statements or actions are attempts at sparking behavioral changes, and it's done through high costs and inconvenience. Good politicians also try to gauge local, state and national community standards. If pro-life republicans take over congress in November, it might be a little more inconvenient and expensive for people to get abortions. Maybe it will spark some behavioral changes. How does it feel to be led around by the nose and trained like a chihuahua?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
SCOTUS did not write the Constitution, nor are they the final arbiter of what it means.

the above is exactly why they are not the final arbiter of the Constitution
Click to expand...

They have the power to interpret the Constitution and are the final arbiter of its meaning unless one of the checks and balances checks the decision (primarily by constitutional amendment although rare).
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, there is.

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
14th Amendment: "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. ... ... The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Click to expand...

You are confusing naturalization with immigration. There is nothing in the words you posted above that pertain to immigration.
 
Truth Detector said:
STRAWMAN ALERT!

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

Invasion is protected under the defense powers. Immigration is not defense or invasion. You are giving a very liberal interpretation to "invasion" to create more federal power.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes there is. You just discard these documents.
Click to expand...

Naturalization and immigration are not the same thing as ruled by the Supreme Court and recognized by Congress in passing separate laws dealing with the two topics.

There is no text in the Constitution regarding immigration. There are many powers the courts have granted the federal government that have no constitutional basis or text to support them--immigration is one.

You are confusing naturalization and immigration. confusion fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top