Author Topic: Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling (Read 11070 times)

sneakypete · « **Reply #25 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:35:39 pm »

Quote from: TIU on February 08, 2019, 02:09:56 pm

There are two possibilities.

1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep.

2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).

That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).

@TIU

Hmmm,let's see if we can figure this out. He was nominated by that homo George Bush,he seems to have married the first girl he ever dated,and this was after law school,and he and his wife immediately adopted a pair of blonde-haired and blue-eyed children from Argentina so they could look like a family.

Hmmm,what could it be he has been hiding that has been held over his head,what COULD it be?

sneakypete · « **Reply #26 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:38:54 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:29:44 pm

@Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

@Bigun

Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.

TomSea · « **Reply #27 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:39:26 pm »

Or is Planned Parenthood, such a big interest group, there could be that possibility as well.

Bigun · « **Reply #28 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:41:08 pm »

Quote from: sneakypete on February 08, 2019, 02:38:54 pm

@Bigun

Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.

So how is allowing babies to be murdered protecting those rights? Inquiring minds and all that rot!

Jazzhead · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:41:40 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:29:44 pm

@Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

Whether you like it or not, both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to choose whether to reproduce are rights protected under the Constitution. As such, if the SCOTUS were to uphold a state law that effectively bans abortions, it would also uphold a state law that effectively bans guns. It is the task of a WISE Justice to understand that some rights should not be more equal than others, and that by allowing a state's arbitrary denial of a Constitutional right you disfavor, precedent has been set providing Dems with a roadmap to deny arbitrarily the right you favor.

sneakypete · « **Reply #30 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:43:21 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:41:08 pm

So how is allowing babies to be murdered protecting those rights? Inquiring minds and all that rot!

@Bigun

It doesn't. WHERE does it say anywhere that it is legal to murder babies?

BTW,a fetus is NOT a baby. It is a POTENTIAL baby.

Bigun · « **Reply #31 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:45:34 pm »

Quote

Whether you like it or not, both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to choose whether to reproduce are rights protected under the Constitution.

Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!

Now how about answering the question I asked you!

TomSea · « **Reply #32 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:46:19 pm »

Look at Kavanaugh, he was smeared, protested, it's really hard to get a justice through the process. I don't know how it was with Roberts but the whole thing is a tooth and nail battle. It kind of makes all decisions tainted because the Democrats do not vote on mere qualifications to the Court.

Democrats are not allowing the process to play out as our Founding Fathers anticipated and wanted.

Jazzhead · « **Reply #33 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:46:29 pm »

Quote from: sneakypete on February 08, 2019, 02:38:54 pm

@Bigun

Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.

The whole point of our Republic is set forth in the Declaration - that government be instituted to ensure the rights of the people, not the other way around. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness represent the natural rights of the individual, and central to that is the idea of individual autonomy. Like you say, @sneakypete, individual autonomy cannot exist without the right to privacy.

Bigun · « **Reply #34 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:47:47 pm »

Quote from: sneakypete on February 08, 2019, 02:43:21 pm

@Bigun

It doesn't. WHERE does it say anywhere that it is legal to murder babies?

BTW,a fetus is NOT a baby. It is a POTENTIAL baby.

Right! That's why they are so busy harvesting their body parts!

Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?

Wingnut · « **Reply #35 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:50:02 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:47:47 pm

Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?

Yes. And they become house democrats.

Jazzhead · « **Reply #36 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:50:03 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:45:34 pm

Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!

Spoken like a man. Just point and shoot, and leave the woman to deal with the problem.

During the first trimester, the choice whether to reproduce is solely that of the woman.

Bigun · « **Reply #37 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:50:07 pm »

Quote from: Jazzhead on February 08, 2019, 02:46:29 pm

The whole point of our Republic is set forth in the Declaration - that government be instituted to ensure the rights of the people, not the other way around. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness represent the natural rights of the individual, and central to that is the idea of individual autonomy. Like you say, @sneakypete, individual autonomy cannot exist without the right to privacy.

Yet another punt avoiding the question! Which was @Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

Jazzhead · « **Reply #38 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:50:50 pm »

Quote from: The Ghost on February 08, 2019, 02:50:02 pm

Yes. And they become house democrats.

Bigun · « **Reply #39 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:50:57 pm »

Quote from: The Ghost on February 08, 2019, 02:50:02 pm

Yes. And they become house democrats.

Or maybe Jazzheads!

Wingnut · « **Reply #40 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:52:52 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:50:57 pm

Or maybe Jazzheads!

Proof of the infinite monkey theorem?

Jazzhead · « **Reply #41 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:56:04 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on February 08, 2019, 02:50:07 pm

Yet another punt avoiding the question! Which was @Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

So you think the right to privacy is meaningless, and that there is nothing in the Constitution to deny the State from arbitrarily poking into your private business? You sure don't sound like any kind of conservative I recognize!

Remember that this all this privacy rights stuff started with the case of (I think it was) Connecticut's law banning the use of contraceptives. Griswold, I think it was. Is that the sort of power you want to give the state - that a couple in the privacy of their bedroom can't practice birth control, if the religion-obsessed yahoos in the state legislature say they can't?

Bigun · « **Reply #42 on:** February 08, 2019, 02:58:31 pm »

Quote from: Jazzhead on February 08, 2019, 02:56:04 pm

So you think the right to privacy is meaningless, and that there is nothing in the Constitution to deny the State from arbitrarily poking into your private business? You sure don't sound like any kind of conservative I recognize!

Remember that this all this privacy rights stuff started with the case of (I think it was) Connecticut's law banning the use of contraceptives. Griswold, I think it was. Is that the sort of power you want to give the state - that a couple in the privacy of their bedroom can't practice birth control, if the religion-obsessed yahoos in the state legislature say they can't?

Answer the GD question or begone!

Jazzhead · « **Reply #43 on:** February 08, 2019, 03:06:20 pm »

Quote

Answer the GD question or begone!

.

Article 3. Marbury v. Madison.

And if you don't accept that, then sit back like a good boy and let the State inventory your guns. After all, by your own admission you have no right to privacy.

Bigun · « **Reply #44 on:** February 08, 2019, 03:11:08 pm »

Quote from: Jazzhead on February 08, 2019, 03:06:20 pm

.

Article 3. Marbury v. Madison.

Now sit back like a good boy and let the State inventory your guns. After all, you have no right to privacy.

Not gonna answer the question are you. Not surprised! The answer to my question is that neither the right to an Abortion or, for that matter, privacy is codified in the Constitution!

And BTW: Marbury vs Madison is yet more judicial usurpation!

I'll give you credit for one thing only! YOU are a sophist of the first order!

Frank Cannon · « **Reply #45 on:** February 08, 2019, 03:14:11 pm »

Quote from: Applewood on February 08, 2019, 12:36:18 pm

Well, Roberts is the reason why I don't trust Trump's "conservative" justices. Roberts was sold as a conservative and he turned out to be anything but.

I also learned from the Roberts fiasco that "conservative" and "Republican" are not one and the same.

Oh yeah? How did Cav vote on this?

BTW Roberts isn't even a GOPer so what's your point?