Another Liberal Judge Oversteps Their Authority

[rangerrebew]

Another Liberal Judge Oversteps Their Authority
August 13, 20190   

Abortion is the Democrat’s way to legally murder innocent babies. It is their way to control people and make them believe that they care about them and what they may have been through. When A Democrat claims that abortion should be promoted and legalized it is their way of saying that they believe murdering innocent babies is just fine with them. The Democrats feed off the vulnerable and seek to destroy those that do and may one day stand against them and their crazy beliefs.

What does not help the matter is when crazy liberal judges step into the picture and enforce laws that declare that murder is just fine as long as the victim is a baby. A federal judge, Kristine Baker decided it was his job to block a bill that has been approved by law the majority of lawmakers and people in the state. But the minority of people that believe abortion should be legal and free have cried out in fear and pain and asked a judge to intervene to keep then from losing their right to murder people.

https://rightwing247.com/2019/08/13/another-liberal-judge-oversteps-their-authority/

[Jazzhead]

Y'all would be screaming if the majority in your state legislature were to outlaw your ability to own a firearm.  You'd be citing your natural right to self-defense secured by the United States Constitution.

This is no different.   A state legislature has trampled on the natural right of a woman to determine for herself whether to reproduce - a right as protected by the Constitution as the individual RKBA.    The courts must now, under the Constitution, secure that natural right so trampled.   

The use of emotional rhetoric such as "murdering innocent babies"  doesn't change the fact that this is a straightforward application of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.   That is why so many of these recent state laws are being swiftly, well, aborted. 

[Mod1]

This is not a news story but an editorial. Moved accordingly.

[Cyber Liberty]

Y'all would be screaming if the majority in your state legislature were to outlaw your ability to own a firearm.  You'd be citing your natural right to self-defense secured by the United States Constitution.

This is no different.   A state legislature has trampled on the natural right of a woman to determine for herself whether to reproduce - a right as protected by the Constitution as the individual RKBA.    The courts must now, under the Constitution, secure that natural right so trampled.   

The use of emotional rhetoric such as "murdering innocent babies"  doesn't change the fact that this is a straightforward application of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.   That is why so many of these recent state laws are being swiftly, well, aborted.

Conflating your two favorite leftist views again, I see.   This is an abortion thread, not a gun control thread.  You trolled the crap out of gun control threads the past week, and it won't be allowed to continue on this thread.  Further posts like this one will be deleted from this thread.

[Jazzhead]

Conflating your two favorite leftist views again, I see.   This is an abortion thread, not a gun control thread.  You trolled the crap out of gun control threads the past week, and it won't be allowed to continue on this thread.  Further posts like this one will be deleted from this thread.

Why?  It is explicit commentary on the thread topic - that judges who deny enforcement of laws effectively banning abortion are overstepping their authority.   They are not - they are protecting natural rights secured by the Constitution.   The fact that I make my point by analogy to the individual RKBA isn't "trolling".    It is an attempt to frame my argument in a way that readers may understand and appreciate.   Gun owners look to the Constitution to protect their rights.  So do women.   Rights for me also means rights for thee!   

[Wingnut]

Y'all would be screaming if the majority in your state legislature were to outlaw your ability to own a firearm.  You'd be citing your natural right to self-defense secured by the United States Constitution.

 Abortion is is not an actual amendment like the 1st and 2nd. I respect your use of the 1st to state your case but reject your linking the 2nd to a SC ruling that was a huge mistake.

[Jazzhead]

Abortion is is not an actual amendment like the 1st and 2nd. I respect your use of the 1st to state your case but reject your linking the 2nd to a SC ruling that was a huge mistake.

Thank you for understanding my argument-by-analogy rather than threatening to delete future posts.   I will not explain here why I disagree with your point,  since I have effectively been told I may not do so on this thread.   

[Wingnut]

Thank you for understanding my argument-by-analogy rather than threatening to delete future posts.   I will not explain here why I disagree with your point,  since I have been effectively been told I may not do so on this thread.   

I don't remember deleting any of your posts?

[Jazzhead]

I don't remember deleting any of your posts?

You haven't.  See CL's post above.   I have been told I may not make certain arguments here.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Why?  It is explicit commentary on the thread topic - that judges who deny enforcement of laws effectively banning abortion are overstepping their authority.   They are not - they are protecting natural rights secured by the Constitution.   The fact that I make my point by analogy to the individual RKBA isn't "trolling".    It is an attempt to frame my argument in a way that readers may understand and appreciate.   Gun owners look to the Constitution to protect their rights.  So do women.   Rights for me also means rights for thee!

I'm going to assume you are correct here, it's a one-off observation, and you'll notice I did not touch your post. Your point of the parallel is made, now stick to your views on Abortion.  They are bound to lead to another 10+ page thread, even if you leave the gun thing off the table.  Please proceed!  I will likely not bother you in this way any further.  I might participate in the discussion, but that's another page.

[Cyber Liberty]

Abortion is is not an actual amendment like the 1st and 2nd. I respect your use of the 1st to state your case but reject your linking the 2nd to a SC ruling that was a huge mistake.

You made the point, now please stick to abortion on this thread. 

[Cyber Liberty]

You haven't.  See CL's post above.   I have been told I may not make certain arguments here.   

Ghost can't delete your posts, that takes a Mod.  There's no reason to delete any posts at this time.  I have confidence I won't have to, and that's great because I hate doing it with a passion.

[roamer_1]

Why?  It is explicit commentary on the thread topic - that judges who deny enforcement of laws effectively banning abortion are overstepping their authority.   They are not - they are protecting natural rights secured by the Constitution.   The fact that I make my point by analogy to the individual RKBA isn't "trolling".    It is an attempt to frame my argument in a way that readers may understand and appreciate.   Gun owners look to the Constitution to protect their rights.  So do women.   Rights for me also means rights for thee!

No. A woman certainly has control over her body - That is fine. Her ability to choose is at the point where her legs come apart. If that happens to end in conception, she does not get to choose for the baby within her. It is not her body that is in question. It is the body of the baby - A distinct and separate entity.

[Wingnut]

You made the point, now please stick to abortion on this thread.

You made me cry.  I need to go find my safe space you big meanie!   

[Cyber Liberty]

No. A woman certainly has control over her body - That is fine. Her ability to choose is at the point where her legs come apart. If that happens to end in conception, she does not get to choose for the baby within her. It is not her body that is in question. It is the body of the baby - A distinct and separate entity.

The DNA is different, which is proof in court that it's not the same person.  CSI taught me thus.. 

[Jazzhead]

I'm going to assume you are correct here, it's a one-off observation, and you'll notice I did not touch your post. Your point of the parallel is made, now stick to your views on Abortion.  They are bound to lead to another 10+ page thread, even if you leave the gun thing off the table.  Please proceed!  I will likely not bother you in this way any further.  I might participate in the discussion, but that's another page.

Thank you, CL.   I know full well that many here oppose my take on things, but I strive to adhere to the rules of the board.   

[roamer_1]

The DNA is different, which is proof in court that it's not the same person.  CSI taught me thus.. 

Abortion is a primary and essential element of the false declaration of sexual freedom that drives the so called sexual revolution... And every single one is a sacrifice to evil.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thank you, CL.   I know full well that many here oppose my take on things, but I strive to adhere to the rules of the board.

 

[Jazzhead]

Abortion is a primary and essential element of the false declaration of sexual freedom that drives the so called sexual revolution... And every single one is a sacrifice to evil.

A sinner she may be,  but that does not affect the Constitution's guarantee to secure her natural rights, nor the Courts' obligation to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.   

As I have said on many occasions,  the way to respond when you see a person engaging or about to engage in sin is to persuade her of the error of her ways.   Not to insist that the government impose your moral views on others. 

[roamer_1]

A sinner she may be,  but that does not affect the Constitution's guarantee to secure her natural rights, nor the Courts' obligation to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.

It ain't her sins I am worrying about, but rather the life sacrificed on the altar thereof. The natural right of the child to live is what you always conveniently ignore... Because you need to ignore it in order to proceed.

That is a baby.
You are advocating the murder of innocents.
There is no excuse.
The society that endorses that is doomed, as a nearly mechanical extension of that mindset - as they deserve.

As I have said on many occasions,  the way to respond when you see a person engaging or about to engage in sin is to persuade her of the error of her ways.   Not to insist that the government impose your moral views on others.

It is not an imposition of morals to recognize the living baby as being every bit as entitled as the woman is - even more so, as children need extra protection.

[berdie]

  Not to insist that the government impose your moral views on others.

Imposing moral views is exactly what the government did with R v W.

[Absalom]

Abortion is a primary and essential element of the false declaration of sexual freedom that drives the so called sexual revolution... And every single one is a sacrifice to evil.

-------------------------------------------
Roamer, intuitive, wise and well done.
Many thousands of years before structured religions, Man was guided by Natural Law,
the unchanging moral order that was the basis for all human conduct.
As the Family unit was the bedrock of culture/society, the right to life was fundamental
and therefore the responsibility of the nation/state to honor and protect it.
What is beyond obvious is that the 'rights drum beaters' neither grasp nor accept the
linkage between rights and responsibilities.
Far more egregious is their conflation of the right to own a gun, an instrument of death,
w/the right to life of the unborn child.
These buffoons give new meaning to the descriptive, too stupid for words!!!

[roamer_1]

What is beyond obvious is that the 'rights drum beaters' neither grasp nor accept the
linkage between rights and responsibilities.

True enough @Absalom
I have had a little riddle I have used... Few attend its puzzle, one you will no doubt realize by nature:

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

 

[GrouchoTex]

I have said so in the past and I will say so again.

To give the women protection over her own reproduction right is counter-intuitive to the constitution.
I say so because the court chose to give one person's rights by denying another's.
It gave women the right right to end the most basic and fundamental of all rights-the right to life, and not as an act of justice, such as punishing a murderer with death penalty.
No, the child's right to life was taken away by merely coming into being, only because they existed.

The rights of the child were not then, and have not now, been addressed.

[Bigun]

True enough @Absalom
I have had a little riddle I have used... Few attend its puzzle, one you will no doubt realize by nature:

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

 

Here's mine:  Personal liberty and personal responsibility are inextricably linked! You CANNOT have one without the other!