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

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...

The un-American GQP talking point is to counsel in the sewer to conspire more ways to wage war on Democracy, society and anything else of a civilized nature on Earth, with tRump, in particular, as their head leader among the trash and stench of the sewer of sub-human damnation and a moral failure on humanity too.
 
Damocles said:
Well, you should tell that to the leftists who are saying that this was "against democracy" because the SCOTUS, who took this decision off the plate of voters in a radical court decision, may give it back to them. It seems like both parties are going to tell the rest of America that they "hate democracy"... though this decision actually gives democracy a voice in a decision...

Basically, if you can vote on it, it is bad... Left
If you cannot vote on it, it is bad... Right

The overlap is in the end of the sentence "for democracy"...
Click to expand...

CHOICE is democracy. Laws are to maintain fairness, protect the weak, prevent chicanery and corruption, GIVE THE PEOPLE CHOICE AS TO WHERE TO LIVE, TO OWN OR NOT OWN A GUN, TO ATTEND WHATEVER SCHOOL THEY WANT, TO WORSHIP ANY GOD THEY WANT. Laws guarantee decent food, water, medical attention (or at least they should). Laws guarantee privacy (or at least they should).

Telling a woman she has to have a child conceived by rape or incest is not democracy....it is either theocracy or monarchy or autocracy.
 
BartenderElite said:
I wonder how dudes would feel if basic rights over their body were put out to statewide votes?
Click to expand...

I posted a suggestion by a gentleman who says to stop abortions at the source, you mandate vasectomies until the man is economically and emotionally ready to be a father, then reverse it. The pro-lifers pass a brick at the mere thought, yet have no problem with forcing a woman to have a child sired by rape or incest.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
Earl said:
Post the US Code showing a federal abortion law passed by the US Congress.

I'll wait.

Roe vs. Wade is not a law but an interpretation of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark ***decision*** of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
Click to expand...

This means that the "law" exists within the wording of the Constitution. But hey, until it's a Congress drafted "law", let's repeal it along with every blessed SCOTUS decision that is not base solely and directly on Congress passed law.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
Since the 2020 election, almost every conservative on this site has argued that "we're not a democracy."

Conservatives always want fewer people to vote. They are not pro-democracy.
Click to expand...


Well if you want to get technical we're a Constitutional democratic republic under a federalist system.
Click to expand...

And if YOU want to get technical, we are not a theocracy or an autocracy or monarchy.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
They don't have inherent rights over the life and death of other human bodies and becoming pregnant is a voluntary act, voluntary actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Rape and incest are not voluntary actions on the part of the woman. That's a major part of the "pro-life" agenda at this point. That's fucking sick.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
USA Today IIRC, I'll look for a link.

OK it was 1.5% not 1.5:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ew-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/



Don't care if it was unplanned, still a voluntary act to have sex, live with the consequences of your actions even unintended consequences or put the kid up for adoption.





No, you don't have the right to murder babies, that were created through your own bad decisions, science demonstrates that a new human life with completely unique DNA is formed at Inception, I would be willing to bend on rape and statutory rape as it is the result of force and coercion but the DNC won't even bend on late term abortions as proven by supposed moderates like Senator Ryan out of Ohio who reiterated that on Bret Baier the other day.
Click to expand...

Since you need two people involved for a woman to get pregnant, why not have men have mandatory vasectomies when they hit 17 or 18 until their financially and emotionally ready to support a kid(s)? Vasectomies are reversible.
 
evince said:
Trump appointed three of these judges


All because the Russians fixed an election for him


And because turtle head illegally kept Obama from his constitutional right to appoint a SCOTUS member
Click to expand...

How did the turtle stop Obama from APPOINTING a SCOTUS member?

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

Some in the GOP are actually making a states rights argument but hey, frame it however you want no matter how inaccurate.
 
Flash said:
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).
Click to expand...

they USURPED that power, they weren't given that power. We the people wrote the Constitution and are, therefore, the final arbiter on what it means.
 
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...

i've spent over a decade on this board listening to morons like evince and domer tell us that the courts have the final say.........and on touchy subjects, like 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time they begrudgingly have to talk about Scalia, that even he says gun laws are constitutional...........but then i've also noticed that establishment morons on both sides are full of cognitive dissonance when it comes to discussing court issues they like and hate............

Unless a person is a true idiot, they KNOW what the Constitution does, what it means, and how it's supposed to work...........they just can't get past their own biases, wants, desires, for what they believe will be a better world, so they stick to the brainwashed talking points from their elected handlers to argue with each other while that supposedly limited government wreaks havoc on our freedom as the idiots cheer them on.

sooner or later you proles are going to have to face a very sobering discovery about how you let the government destroy liberty in order for you to feel safe from your political enemies........enemies that you were told would destroy freedom
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...
Illegal immigration (e.g. migrant caravans) IS invasion, dude.

The Federal Government under the installed Biden Regime are failing to do their Article IV Section 4 constitutional duty to protect the States from invasion. They are instead, for the most part, leaving the individual States to fend for themselves against this invasion meanwhile sending $40+ billion to subsidize the Ukrainian government and to continue feeding the war machine that they stoked up over there.
 
Last edited:
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...

I suppose if a person has no idea what the Constitution says, is intended to do or why those intentions were agreed to by people who cherished independence and liberty, then your post might make sense.

Any knowledge at all regarding what the Constitution was intended to do explains why and how your post is wrong at all levels and in all ways.

That aside, though, why do you feel that the life of an unborn human being is not a consideration in this topic?
 
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...

What is complex about murder? Murder is murder.
 
Flash said:
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).
Click to expand...

Discard of the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution. They cannot interpret it. They cannot change it. They MUST operate UNDER it. See Article III.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top