ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile

Trump will apoint another right wing judge, after Scalia substituion, and, the court will be considerably bent to the right.

SSM is out, abortions are out, what would be next ?

1

Steve B

  • ****
  • 9591 Posts
  • all nations people of every language worshiped him
    • View Profile
Abortion is tricky because of the wording of the 14th amendment.  Particularly the word "born."  I think we need to amend the 14th amendment to include unborn children.  I think that is a job for the Congress and the Senate. . . not the Supreme Court.

As for gay marriage, it was a 5 vs. 4 vote in the Supreme Court.  A completely ridiculous decision. . . and by only 1 single judge.

Whether or not gay marriage should be recognized falls under the 10th amendment.  Obviously, under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court should have never made that decision.

So yes,  a single judge would make all the difference. We will definitely get one.  And there is a chance we could see two, or three, or even four SCJ's while Trump is in office.

my 2 cents.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 11:07:56 pm by Steve B »

2

tembew

  • **
  • 44 Posts
    • View Profile

Trump will apoint another right wing judge, after Scalia substituion, and, the court will be considerably bent to the right.

SSM is out, abortions are out, what would be next ?

none of that will really matter if the country crumbles.

3

hellofriend

  • **
  • 89 Posts
    • View Profile
Maybe they privatise social security, and remove income tax and move to gold standard.

4

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will go back to being a state-by-state issue, with some states having liberal abortion laws and others banning it entirely, and still other states in between. So women of means will still be able to have abortions. On the other hand, many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here.

5

Steve B

  • ****
  • 9591 Posts
  • all nations people of every language worshiped him
    • View Profile
many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here.

*sigh*  If you could just stop attributing motives and emotional states to people, Soren, we could all get along much better.  Of course we are bothered when any life is lost.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 11:23:17 pm by Steve B »

6

hellofriend

  • **
  • 89 Posts
    • View Profile
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will go back to being a state-by-state issue, with some states having liberal abortion laws and others banning it entirely, and still other states in between. So women of means will still be able to have abortions. On the other hand, many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here.

That's terrible about the back alleys, but also the 60 million abortion must be factored in.

7

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here.

*sigh*  If you could just stop attributing motives to people, Soren, we could all get along much better.  Of course we are bothered when any life is lost.
I am not attributing motives, I am taking people at their word based on what they say here. In the years I have been reading this forum, I have read post after post about the need to overturn Roe and the fetuses/unborn children/whatever term you want to use that supposedly will be saved. I have seen hardly any posts even acknowledging the number of women who will die and be maimed if Roe is overturned. That's not attributing motives, that's observing facts and taking what people say seriously.

8

Steve B

  • ****
  • 9591 Posts
  • all nations people of every language worshiped him
    • View Profile
I am taking people at their word based on what they say here. In the years I have been reading this forum,

Then, by now, you should know that we care about all lives.  So saying "many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here."

Come on man. . . how can you say that we are "not bothered" by any life lost.  When we say "all lives matter" we mean it.  We mean it for the mother, and we also mean it for the unborn child.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 11:41:12 pm by Steve B »

9

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
I think a reversal of SSM would actually be very bad electorally for Trump and the Republicans.
Life is a box of chocolates!

10

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
I am taking people at their word based on what they say here. In the years I have been reading this forum,

Then, by now, you should know that we care about all lives.  So saying "many poor women will die in back alleys, as they did before Roe -- something that seems not to bother many Christians here."

Come on man. . . how can you say that we are "not bothered" by any life lost.  When we say "all lives matter" we mean it.  We mean it for the mother, and we also mean it for the unborn child.
Gotta love the way you cut the part of what I said that didn't fit your argument. If you are so bothered by the women who would die in a post-Roe world, why do you never talk about that and how to prevent it, the way you talk about saving fetuses/unborn children all the time?

11

kurros

  • *****
  • 12195 Posts
    • View Profile
Abortion is tricky because of the wording of the 14th amendment.  Particularly the word "born."  I think we need to amend the 14th amendment to include unborn children.  I think that is a job for the Congress and the Senate. . . not the Supreme Court.

As for gay marriage, it was a 5 vs. 4 vote in the Supreme Court.  A completely ridiculous decision. . . and by only 1 single judge.

Whether or not gay marriage should be recognized falls under the 10th amendment.  Obviously, under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court should have never made that decision.

So yes,  a single judge would make all the difference. We will definitely get one.  And there is a chance we could see two, or three, or even four SCJ's while Trump is in office.

my 2 cents.

I'm not very familiar with the operation of the U.S. supreme court, but can they really so easily reverse past decisions? I would have thought those are rather binding, and something else would have to change first before the impact of a decision could be altered. I assume they cannot just declare past decisions to have been wrong?

12

TheCross

  • ****
  • 5351 Posts
  • Follower of christ.
    • View Profile

Trump will apoint another right wing judge, after Scalia substituion, and, the court will be considerably bent to the right.

SSM is out, abortions are out, what would be next ?

...dont get me all fired up, i must be dreaming!

Abortion IS murder, i dont care about anything else at this point, all i know is this.
Gal 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

13

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4686 Posts
    • View Profile
Abortion is tricky because of the wording of the 14th amendment.  Particularly the word "born."  I think we need to amend the 14th amendment to include unborn children.  I think that is a job for the Congress and the Senate. . . not the Supreme Court.

As for gay marriage, it was a 5 vs. 4 vote in the Supreme Court.  A completely ridiculous decision. . . and by only 1 single judge.

Whether or not gay marriage should be recognized falls under the 10th amendment.  Obviously, under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court should have never made that decision.

So yes,  a single judge would make all the difference. We will definitely get one.  And there is a chance we could see two, or three, or even four SCJ's while Trump is in office.

my 2 cents.

I'm not very familiar with the operation of the U.S. supreme court, but can they really so easily reverse past decisions? I would have thought those are rather binding, and something else would have to change first before the impact of a decision could be altered. I assume they cannot just declare past decisions to have been wrong?


They have to hear a new case.  I think it's not very hard.
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

14

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile

Trump will apoint another right wing judge, after Scalia substituion, and, the court will be considerably bent to the right.

SSM is out, abortions are out, what would be next ?

...dont get me all fired up, i must be dreaming!

Abortion IS murder, i dont care about anything else at this point, all i know is this.

I agree, but, that wouldn´t make much of a discussion  : )

The "problem" is that, then, we are talking any liberall friendly laws are up for grabs,  for example, those that depend on a broad reading of the commerce clause, like civil rights(non racial discrimanation) and labor federal laws, which constituational basis is piggy backed on the assumption that businesses and other organizations are always involved in interstate commerce, even if they’re local, because that’s how capitalism works today.

For instance, Justice Thomas’s has stated, before, that that’s not good enough, that the Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate commerce itself, not business activities related to it, and thus, civil rights laws, with respect to those buisnesses, would be  beyond the federal government’s constitutional power.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:00:22 am by ontologicalme »