Hey Lefties, can we talk about this yet?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes. But, when you say "unrestricted" by whom do you mean? The government?

By unrestricted I mean just that unrestricted . A woman can for any reason at any point in her pregnancy walk into a clinic and get an abortion.

That seems to be the only thing Modern Progressives will accept.

Roe V Wade wasn't exactly that but it was close enough. Now we have the other extreme which is basically no abortions . If woman could have exercised the Right to an abortion responsibly then we wouldn't be in this spot.

There has to be a middle ground on this because one extreme or the other isn't going to cut it for either side.

But, ENOUGH about abortion. Abortion and woman' rights are a reason why many people won't support a Republican candidate for President now, regardless of our meandering on the subject.

If you would simply listen to DJTrump instead of just making wild assumptions. He is pretty moderate on abortion.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Everyone knows what Trump is, but one thing he has shown, is he can be an effective leader.

LOL
And He only hires the best!

HAHAHAHA!

How'd his leadership on January 6th bear out?

I'm guessing exactly as it was engineered to. I'll make a bet with you right here, and right now. And this one is almost a sure thing for you.

I believe that in the next 4 years there will be a real investigation into Jan 6th, and you will find the entire thing was a set up to tag Trump with the term "insurrectionist", as that was the only mechanism to remove him from ever running again. Pelosi and the whole democratic machine was in on it. That will be proven. And it's largely the only real complaint you have other than him being mean and orange.

So, if that comes to fruition, you will make a post here and on DenyIgnorance.com, stating that you have been wrong about Trump and you are sorry. If it's not proven, then I will do the same. I know me, so I know I have the integrity to show up in 4 years. I sincerely doubt you do, but at least it's here in print.

We can talk in the thread about how the economy is going and how those new wars are waging on. I look forward to it.

LOL, no guts eh.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Hmm... Is he trying to Putt there or Sheeting his Pants ? I can't Tell............

I'm 64 and I played 18 yesterday and even with a cart I was beat, it was 93... I'm 6'5" and in good shape, still push heavy weights at the gym. Biden couldn't even make it 18 holes, much less have a score below 150+ when he got done.

I say if Biden is so good we should have a three-day event where he plays against Trump and the winner wins the Presidency.

If you would simply listen to DJTrump instead of just making wild assumptions. He is pretty moderate on abortion.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow


Anything he says must be rejected. If he made the claim that breathing air without water in your mouth was the best way to do it, the left would be downing in the streets. Border wall? Sounds good- Bill Clinton/Barrack Obama, Trump wants a wall? HELL NO! that would end the world as we know it!!!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What was wrong with the term limit provided by Roe?

What would that look like, and what makes you think whatever Congress had come up with, this SCOTUS court wouldn't have shot it down

It does matter what you or I think... Not sure why you argue with me on this... The term limits in Roe were not the issue as I explained many times. Why would the SC shoot it down if Congress put limits and made it federally legal? The SC ruling was that it is outside of their limited powers to do it since it is outside of the Constitution, you disagree so go argue it with them, and many scholars over the last 5 decades.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I'm asking you why? Because a pregnant woman's autonomy isn't a constitutional right? Is your autonomy a constitutional right?

No, it isn't...

If my autonomy is a constitutional right, then how could they mandate vaccines?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Look, none of your lies are going to change history, or my vote. So, aim them elsewhere.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What was wrong with the term limit provided by Roe?

What would that look like, and what makes you think whatever Congress had come up with, this SCOTUS court wouldn't have shot it down

It does matter what you or I think... Not sure why you argue with me on this... The term limits in Roe were not the issue as I explained many times. Why would the SC shoot it down if Congress put limits and made it federally legal? The SC ruling was that it is outside of their limited powers to do it since it is outside of the Constitution, you disagree so go argue it with them, and many scholars over the last 5 decades.

I asked you a question. Answer it, dont answer it.

As far as SCOTUS shooting down Congress, SCOTUS said this is a STATE issue, so yeah, they could shoot down any mandate they don't like. Right now they're poised to overturn EMTALA's authority.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I'm asking you why? Because a pregnant woman's autonomy isn't a constitutional right? Is your autonomy a constitutional right?

No, it isn't...

If my autonomy is a constitutional right, then how could they mandate vaccines?

Public health.
There's nothing public about a women's choice.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What was wrong with the term limit provided by Roe?

What would that look like, and what makes you think whatever Congress had come up with, this SCOTUS court wouldn't have shot it down

It does matter what you or I think... Not sure why you argue with me on this... The term limits in Roe were not the issue as I explained many times. Why would the SC shoot it down if Congress put limits and made it federally legal? The SC ruling was that it is outside of their limited powers to do it since it is outside of the Constitution, you disagree so go argue it with them, and many scholars over the last 5 decades.

I asked you a question. Answer it, dont answer it.

As far as SCOTUS shooting down Congress, SCOTUS said this is a STATE issue, so yeah, they could shoot down any mandate they don't like. Right now they're poised to overturn EMTALA's authority.

maybe you should pack the court with a bunch of democrats and then they can interpret the constitution more to your liking. Of course, then the right will do the same thing until the SCOTUS has 438 members, but never ever let a stupid idea slip by.

I'd love to see Trump sign a law for abortion giving guidelines and time frames that most agree on, thus ending this idiotic argument. In the end, it's lefties using abortion as birth control, so it's less idiots populating the planet. regardless of how I feel about it, that's a win for the world. Let them all have coat hangars.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I'm asking you why? Because a pregnant woman's autonomy isn't a constitutional right? Is your autonomy a constitutional right?

No, it isn't...

If my autonomy is a constitutional right, then how could they mandate vaccines?

I didn’t know pregnancy was a contagion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What was wrong with the term limit provided by Roe?

What would that look like, and what makes you think whatever Congress had come up with, this SCOTUS court wouldn't have shot it down

It does matter what you or I think... Not sure why you argue with me on this... The term limits in Roe were not the issue as I explained many times. Why would the SC shoot it down if Congress put limits and made it federally legal? The SC ruling was that it is outside of their limited powers to do it since it is outside of the Constitution, you disagree so go argue it with them, and many scholars over the last 5 decades.

As far as SCOTUS shooting down Congress, SCOTUS said this is a STATE issue, so yeah, they could shoot down any mandate they don't like.

No, they can't. They will reject any law "repugnant to the Constitution." They will not reject laws in harmony with the Constitution. Anything not addressed in the Constitution reverts to the States to legislate.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I'm asking you why? Because a pregnant woman's autonomy isn't a constitutional right? Is your autonomy a constitutional right?

No, it isn't...

If my autonomy is a constitutional right, then how could they mandate vaccines?

I didn’t know pregnancy was a contagion.

Contagion?

Is that the reason why women who don’t want to be pregnant end up pregnant?
That would actually explain a lot.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Look, none of your lies are going to change history, or my vote. So, aim them elsewhere.

Well that is a bit below the Belt 'Sookie' . We've had disagreements but I've never called you a liar .

I've no reason to lie to you or twist anything.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You conflated the limits of Roe to allowing abortion of a perfectly healthy, viable fetus, on demand. And then you used that lie to justify a plea for "middle ground".

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Roe WAS middle ground.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Roe V Wade wasn't exactly that but it was close enough.

I did not say they were the same .

a reply to: network dude

I've already posted my remedy for this sick court. It needs to be expanded. If it were up to me, there would be 3 justices for every circuit court.

Of course it would be ethically "wrong" for one president to seat all those justices, so it's a process that needs to be implemented over, again if it were up to me, 3 decades.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You seem to still be mad about the Merrick Garland thing.

a reply to: Vermilion

You seem to be looking for some trigger, instead of addressing my proposal and the fact that there are 13 Circuit Courts and only 9 justices.

Fun Fact: Clarence Thomas complains about the workload, compared to the pay. Expanding the court seems to be a fix for that problem.