Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Emjay]

She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent.   Whoever is nominated will face this question,  and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.

Any chance she could lose in 2018?

[Cyber Liberty]

Any chance she could lose in 2018?

.

She sure can.   To an out-and-out Communist, like the other Senator from Maine.

[Bigun]

I would like to see a law that says lawyers can not serve in legislatures. Lawyers making the laws
is a conflict of interests.

@jpsb


"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

James Madison, Federalist 47

I submit that his fears have been realized.  All one needs to do is look at the composition of our federal government in recent times to confirm it.

[truth_seeker]

I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.

Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth

…. in case a "textualist" were to search

and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?

[cato potatoe]

It's right there, in the Abortion Clause of the 14th amendment, as ratified by the necessary two thirds of states in the wake of the abolitionist movement.  "No state shall make or enforce a law which shall deprive any woman of the right to stab and suck the brains out of her unborn child, up to the moment of viability."

[Oceander]

No, it doesn't.  The right to life is an unalienable right.

Ahhh, so all killing, even the most accidental, or most justified, is illegal?

[Oceander]

Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth
e the document wasdrawn?
…. in case a "textualist" were to search

and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?

Words missing from the Fourth Amendment:  computer, car, cellphone, email .....

[Hoodat]

Words missing from the Fourth Amendment:  computer, car, cellphone, email .....

Words of the Fourth Amendment that do not lose their meaning because of words like 'computer', 'car', 'cellphone', 'email', . . .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Oceander]

Words of the Fourth Amendment that do not lose their meaning because of words like 'computer', 'car', 'cellphone', 'email', . . .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I still don’t see the word “email” in there.  Perhaps you could underline it?

[XenaLee]

What a total beeoch.  I cannot stand her.

I can't stand ANY of the RINOs..... especially McCain.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's right next to the word "musket" in the Second Amendment.

[Bigun]

I still don’t see the word “email” in there.  Perhaps you could underline it?

Covered by the word "effects".

[Oceander]

It's right next to the word "musket" in the Second Amendment.

Why don’t you underline that one, too.  Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets?  After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny. 

[Bigun]

Why don’t you underline that one, too.  Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets?  After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny.

Covered by the word "arms".

[Oceander]

Covered by the word "effects".

There is no ‘m’, ‘a’, ‘i’, or ‘l’ in the word “effects” so the word “email” cannot possibly be there.

Unless, of course, the word “effects” was interpreted by an unelected judge to include “email”, but that would be reading into the Constitution something that isn’t there, and we all know that’s just judicial tyranny. 

[Sanguine]

Ahhh, so all killing, even the most accidental, or most justified, is illegal?

You're really trying to equivocate abortion and an accidental death?  Really?

[Bigun]

There is no ‘m’, ‘a’, ‘i’, or ‘l’ in the word “effects” so the word “email” cannot possibly be there.

Unless, of course, the word “effects” was interpreted by an unelected judge to include “email”, but that would be reading into the Constitution something that isn’t there, and we all know that’s just judicial tyranny.

More bs.

[Oceander]

Covered by the word "arms".

The only letters the words “arms” and “musket” have in common are ‘m’ and ‘s’ so “musket” can’t possibly be covered by the word “arms”.  Unless, of course, some unelected tyrants in black robes read that word into the word “arms”; but that would be verboten judicial tyranny. 

[Oceander]

You're really trying to equivocate abortion and an accidental death?  Really?

No, I am trying to point out your logical inconsistencies.  In particular, that how you throw around the word murder viz. abortion leads to silly results. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Why don’t you underline that one, too.  Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets?  After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny.

Now you are going to jazz-like extremes to twist my words.  Game over, bye.

[Sanguine]

No, I am trying to point out your logical inconsistencies.  In particular, that how you throw around the word murder viz. abortion leads to silly results.

Deliberate killing of an innocent person isn't murder in your book? 

[Oceander]

More bs.

Really?  If the word wasn’t expressly written into the Constitution by the Founders, then it must have been read in there by a bunch of unelected judges.  And that, by hypothesis in these parts, is always judicial tyranny. 

I’m sorry if you think the logical conclusions of your own premises are “bs” but that’s the way it is. 

[XenaLee]

.

She sure can.   To an out-and-out Communist, like the other Senator from Maine.

Isn't that typical of the Democrats though?  The only way they're ok with losing is by going from bad (leftist) to worse (full-blown commie)...lol.

[Oceander]

Deliberate killing of an innocent person isn't murder in your book? 

Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?

[Bigun]

Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?

I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.