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

[Cyber Liberty]

Keep it above the belt, gentlemen.

There was below the belt punching?  I didn't notice.  I put the guy who was doing all the dirty fighting on Ignore for a couple days, so I didn't see anything....

[Silver Pines]

Another poster in full agreement with me........Trump is GOD!!!!

More people hopping on the Trump Train on a daily basis now.

@Frank Cannon

Official confirmation of your hardcore Trump fan status?

[Chosen Daughter]

Sarah Palin refused to abort Trig.  This is why the Left hates her so much.

I don't think of Down Syndrome as severe medical diagnosis.  I am talking about conditions like microcephaly where the child will be missing part of the brain and skull.  I honestly can't bring myself to judge a person.  In some cases like this it might be merciful.  As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life.  All I am saying is I won't judge a person for that kind of medical abortion.

[WingNot]

"On July 1, Wingnut was asked to remove himself from his place of posting; that request came from his Mod. Deep down, he knew she was right, but he also knew that some day he would return to the forum. With nowhere else to go, he appeared at the home of his friend, Oscar Madison. Several years earlier, Madison's Mod had thrown HIM out, requesting that HE never return. Can two zotted men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?

I can't take it anymore, I'm cracking up. Everything you do irritates me. And when you're not here, the things I know you're gonna do when you come in irritate me. You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think of Down Syndrome as severe medical diagnosis.  I am talking about conditions like microcephaly where the child will be missing part of the brain and skull.  I honestly can't bring myself to judge a person.  In some cases like this it might be merciful.  As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life.  All I am saying is I won't judge a person for that kind of medical abortion.

I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.

The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

Official confirmation of your hardcore Trump fan status?

You needed that post for confirmation? Good God woman.

[libertybele]

I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.

The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.

Most liberals don't have reasonable minds.

[Suppressed]

As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life.

A third to a half of all conceptions (i.e., "lives" to some people) pass from a woman's body before she even realizes she was pregnant.

Why does God create such lives only to pass them that way, if all life must have a purpose?

I submit that perhaps a zygote doesn't yet have a soul.  Perhaps a soul doesn't enter even a blastocyst.  Who are we to know when?

[Chosen Daughter]

A third to a half of all conceptions (i.e., "lives" to some people) pass from a woman's body before she even realizes she was pregnant.

Why does God create such lives only to pass them that way, if all life must have a purpose?

I submit that perhaps a zygote doesn't yet have a soul.  Perhaps a soul doesn't enter even a blastocyst.  Who are we to know when?

Interesting read on the subject

https://probe.org/when-does-a-fetus-receive-a-soul/


That's true in wildlife also.  For instance in fish and birds not all eggs hatch......... 

So what is the argument?  That you can't determine a soul so there is no worth?

[Suppressed]

Interesting read on the subject

https://probe.org/when-does-a-fetus-receive-a-soul/


That's true in wildlife also.  For instance in fish and birds not all eggs hatch......... 

So what is the argument?  That you can't determine a soul so there is no worth?

Thanks for the link.  There are gaps in her reasoning, but it brings up some relevant points.

I think it means we can't assume God is a huge mass killer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.

The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.

You're right -- reasonable minds can do that.  But it isn't always so easy to draft laws that will end up doing what those reasonable minds desire.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As long as the candidate does not have a record on the issue, and states that he/she is unable to answer questions re: abortion because they may be required to rule on them, it should be OK.

I think you're right.  In that case, she'll just ask the nominee if he/she respects precedent, and of course they'll say 1) "Yes, I do", but 2) "But that isn't an absolute rule, or else we'd still have Plessy v. Ferguson rather than Brown v. Board of Education."  To get her vote, the nominee just can't be on the record saying Roe is bad law.  That shouldn't be too tough to do.

Collins isn't stupid.  Okay, she is kind of stupid, but even she knows that Roberts won't vote to overturn Roe.  So she's making this statement as her version of virtue signalling -- "Yes, I know that Roe really won't be overturned, but this is my chance to show everyone how pro-choice I am."

I'd be shocked if she didn't vote for the nominee.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're right -- reasonable minds can do that.  But it isn't always so easy to draft laws that will end up doing what those reasonable minds desire.

As @libertybele mentioned upthread...the leftist mind is often not "reasonable."  That is the seed of disagreement.

[txradioguy]

That is just complete and utter nonsense.

You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?

If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time.  Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.

I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country.  Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.

@IsailedawayfromFR he also seems to think that it's perfectly ok for 9 black robes to create rights where there are none...as was the case in Roe.

Liberals who just looooove them some activist judges would probably just prefer we chance the name of the Supreme Court to the Politburo and call it a day.

Because the majority of the time that's how the court acts.  That's exactly what the left wants.

[TomSea]

Thank you Trump/Pence for bringing this to the fore. He said over the weekend, it should be a state issue.

[Cyber Liberty]

@IsailedawayfromFR he also seems to think that it's perfectly ok for 9 black robes to create rights where there are none...as was the case in Roe.

Liberals who just looooove them some activist judges would probably just prefer we chance the name of the Supreme Court to the Politburo and call it a day.

Because the majority of the time that's how the court acts.  That's exactly what the left wants.

LOL.  I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else.  I got tired of being trolled yesterday.

[Oceander]

That is just complete and utter nonsense.

You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?

If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time.  Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.

I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country.  Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.

So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right. 

That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your statement. And the fact that you, like just about everyone else here, swooned and cried hosannas of joy over that case simply means that you are a grade A hypocrite,  no better than the liberals you excoriate when it comes to using the courts as just another means of oppression.

<NOPE>

[txradioguy]

LOL.  I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else.  I got tired of being trolled yesterday.

@Cyber Liberty

The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.

[Suppressed]

"Unelected judges" is a democrat slur.

We live in a republic, where we have an elected President and Senators appointing those judges.  Would we look with disdain on laws not passed via referendum?

[Oceander]

@Cyber Liberty

The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.

<NOPE>

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.

So tell me a new thing.

[Jazzhead]

@Cyber Liberty

The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.

Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't.    If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite. 

Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before.  BUT SO WAS HELLER.  Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided.   The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA.  Millions now rely on Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. 

A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.   An activist jurist doesn't give a damn,  and will upset the applecart no matter how many folks' established liberty is denied.   The jurist who overturns Roe or Heller is a "tyrant in black robes".   The jurist who respects precedent understands the proper role of the judiciary in our Republic.   

[WingNot]

So tell me a new thing.

! No longer available

[Smokin Joe]

I'm shocked!

Yeah, Collins has long been a reliable Democrat presence in the Senate, no matter what the party letter is after her name.

[XenaLee]

LOL.  I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else.  I got tired of being trolled yesterday.

Don't look now... but.....

apparently, the trolling continues today. 

Offhand, I'd have to say the left is acting like a disturbed hornet's nest.  (kicked-in antbed?)  lolol

The very thought of having yet another Scalia-type justice nominated has driven them quite out of their minds (I know, I know.... how can you tell).