Is President's push to nominate the next Supreme Court pick Impeachable offense ?? (Page 2): Roe v friggin Wade! So that's what this brouhaha is all about. You pathetic creatures...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. wrote:

I’m no legal expert, but no, I don’t think of it a... (show quote)

Roe v friggin Wade! So that's what this brouhaha is all about. You pathetic creatures are fighting to sustain the wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies.

Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law

Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of b****s.

It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.

Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is commonly thought that Roe only prohibits restrictions on a******n in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-a******n regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.

The confusion arises from the scheme set out in the majority opinion, written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun.

In the first trimester, the court declared, the right to a******n was absolute. In the second, states could regulate it to protect the mother’s health. In the third, states could restrict a******n in theory, but had to allow exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother, defined capaciously in the accompanying case of Doe v. Bolton to include “emotional, psychological, familial” considerations, as well as “the woman’s age.”

Roe struck down 50 state laws and has made it all but impossible to regulate a******n, except in the narrowest circumstances. More to the point, the argument that its particular set of policy preferences is mandated by the Constitution is flatly preposterous.

Over the years, the decision’s laughable constitutional inadequacy has been widely recognized. Shortly after it came down, Harvard Law School professor John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized a******n, wrote that “Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

“Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding,” a former Blackmun clerk, Edward Lazarus, has written. “And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”

That’s because none is possible. The court in Roe purported to find the constitutional right to a******n in the 14th Amendment, which says that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized a******n (in fact, a******n laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, a******n is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.

He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “prenatal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president.

This is too stupid for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.

The best case that can be made for Roe is that it is a mistaken decision on the books for nearly 50 years now, so it has to be honored as a precedent. But the court is not, and shouldn’t be, in the practice of standing by fundamentally flawed decisions. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregated education, almost 60 years later. Just last week, the court overturned a labor decision from 1977.

Roe is bad law and bad democracy. It has no sound constitutional basis, and deserves to go the way of the court’s other embarrassments and misfires.

Roe v. Wade: Unjust, Unconstitutional, and Undemocratic

Seth

proud republican wrote:

These people are nuts!!!!!!!!!! Can you imagine they are thinking about another impeachment!!! I say go for it!!! You will lose again , but this time you will lose e******n too!!

The Democratic Party has gone totally off the reservation. They don't even try to hide their desperation, they don't care what they do in front of the v**ers, which is going to cost them -- they're banking on stealing the e******n through their mail-in b****t sabotage and are so sure of themselves that they're making their utter disrespect for our Constitution and our entire political system glaringly apparent. They don't give a rat's hindquarters what the American people think because they don't expect our v**es to matter.

This is what the l*****t useful i***ts who post here approve of and it's why I have no respect left for them as either Americans or even remotely intelligent people.

The Democrats are behaving as they are because they fully expect to be in control of the government by January, and the hell with the American people or what the people v**e for or the will of the people.

woodguru

proud republican wrote:

Pelosi seems to think so!! What do you guys think ?? I especially want to hear from our Liberals on OPP!.....I personally think it's going to help President Trump and Republicans because it's so ridiculous! Her other option per Judge Napolitano is to shut down Government next week , which also will help President Trump according to Judge Napolitano ....So,I would like to hear from you....

There were other things that have come up in the last few weeks that could serve as valid impeachment articles.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

woodguru wrote:

There were other things that have come up in the last few weeks that could serve as valid impeachment articles.

Go ahead and try to impeach President Trump for the second time !! Go for it!! You will lose BIG time in November .... People are tired of your BS!!!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

There were other things that have come up in the last few weeks that could serve as valid impeachment articles.

Name one, just one.

Article II, Section 4

The president, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” carried with it a restrictive meaning.

Tug484

proud republican wrote:

Pelosi seems to think so!! What do you guys think ?? I especially want to hear from our Liberals on OPP!.....I personally think it's going to help President Trump and Republicans because it's so ridiculous! Her other option per Judge Napolitano is to shut down Government next week , which also will help President Trump according to Judge Napolitano ....So,I would like to hear from you....

Of course not and I don't know how she can even try to pull that off.
It's his constitutional duty and the Dems would do it too.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Blade_Runner wrote:

Roe v friggin Wade! So that's what this brouhaha is all about. You pathetic creatures are fighting to sustain the wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn babies.

Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law

Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of b****s.

It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.

Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is commonly thought that Roe only prohibits restrictions on a******n in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-a******n regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.

The confusion arises from the scheme set out in the majority opinion, written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun.

In the first trimester, the court declared, the right to a******n was absolute. In the second, states could regulate it to protect the mother’s health. In the third, states could restrict a******n in theory, but had to allow exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother, defined capaciously in the accompanying case of Doe v. Bolton to include “emotional, psychological, familial” considerations, as well as “the woman’s age.”

Roe struck down 50 state laws and has made it all but impossible to regulate a******n, except in the narrowest circumstances. More to the point, the argument that its particular set of policy preferences is mandated by the Constitution is flatly preposterous.

Over the years, the decision’s laughable constitutional inadequacy has been widely recognized. Shortly after it came down, Harvard Law School professor John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized a******n, wrote that “Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

“Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding,” a former Blackmun clerk, Edward Lazarus, has written. “And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”

That’s because none is possible. The court in Roe purported to find the constitutional right to a******n in the 14th Amendment, which says that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized a******n (in fact, a******n laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, a******n is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.

He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “prenatal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president.

This is too stupid for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.

The best case that can be made for Roe is that it is a mistaken decision on the books for nearly 50 years now, so it has to be honored as a precedent. But the court is not, and shouldn’t be, in the practice of standing by fundamentally flawed decisions. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregated education, almost 60 years later. Just last week, the court overturned a labor decision from 1977.

Roe is bad law and bad democracy. It has no sound constitutional basis, and deserves to go the way of the court’s other embarrassments and misfires.

Roe v. Wade: Unjust, Unconstitutional, and Undemocratic

Roe v friggin Wade! So that's what this brouhaha i... (show quote)

There have been many who have pointed out the flaws in the Roe vs Wade decision. Many have also stated that our unique problems with legal a******n all ties back to this was decided by 5 unelected judges. If you look at other countries, especially Ireland and Italy (two heavily Catholic nations), you don't see the same violence over a******n. Why? Because those countries held a referendum or they passed actual legislation to establish the legality of a******n. We need either a referendum or Congress needs to pass legislation to either outlaw or permit a******n. The people of this country, at least in the past, have respected the results of e******ns.

Highlander66 Loc: Illinois

Kind of interesting, the left are squawking about Mitch saying no to Obama appointing a judge but seem to forget that Obama is a renowned constitutional scholar who made the argument at the time that he had a constitutional duty to appoint a judge when a vacancy occurred. Someone else agreed with him.. let’s see.. oh yes. Ruth bader Ginsburg also weighed in at the time saying the president doesn’t stop being president just because it’s an e******n year and that he has an obligation to fill the spot. I don’t agree with much that Obama said, but by golly I’m on board with him here. It can’t be hypocritical because it’s a different president, can it?

Seth

Highlander66 wrote:

Kind of interesting, the left are squawking about ... (show quote)

Even the infamous RINO Romney agrees with Constitutional Scholar Obama -- he, too, is on board for holding confirmation hearings for a Trump nominee, which pretty much makes it a done deal in the Senate, despite the demurrage of one element each from Alaska and Maine.

rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

proud republican wrote:

Pelosi seems to think so!! What do you guys think ?? I especially want to hear from our Liberals on OPP!.....I personally think it's going to help President Trump and Republicans because it's so ridiculous! Her other option per Judge Napolitano is to shut down Government next week , which also will help President Trump according to Judge Napolitano ....So,I would like to hear from you....

No ! hypocrisy. is not impeachable

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. Loc: Pa

Seth wrote:

Even the infamous RINO Romney agrees with Constitutional Scholar Obama -- he, too, is on board for holding confirmation hearings for a Trump nominee, which pretty much makes it a done deal in the Senate, despite the demurrage of one element each from Alaska and Maine.

Moscow Mitch - Slimy then, slimy now.

“What’s fair is fair. This is what MM said in 2016. The American people should have a voice in the se******n of their next Supreme Court justice,” he continued. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He added: “This is the ‘McConnell rule.'”

Would be nice if the "Ditch Mitch" movement in Kentucky put this sleazeball out to pasture.

Seth

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. wrote:

Moscow Mitch - Slimy then, slimy now.

“What’s fair is fair. This is what MM said in 2016. The American people should have a voice in the se******n of their next Supreme Court justice,” he continued. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He added: “This is the ‘McConnell rule.'”

Would be nice if the "Ditch Mitch" movement in Kentucky put this sleazeball out to pasture.

Meanwhile, your ilk is perfectly at home canonizing a fraud like Pocahontas Warren, a liar, thief and t*****r like Hillary Clinton and a "deer in the headlights" Alzheimer's victim for president.

I won't even bother mentioning that corrupt, drunken mess of a Speaker of the House you folks revere as the leader of your Party of Treason®.

Mr. Cannoli, clear the corruption and Marxism out of your own political party before you baselessly name call or otherwise denigrate real Americans.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. wrote:

Moscow Mitch - Slimy then, slimy now.

“What’s fair is fair. This is what MM said in 2016. The American people should have a voice in the se******n of their next Supreme Court justice,” he continued. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He added: “This is the ‘McConnell rule.'”

Would be nice if the "Ditch Mitch" movement in Kentucky put this sleazeball out to pasture.

This has been stated many times, the situation is different now than it was in 2016 and the party of the President is of absolutely no importance. In 2016, Obama was a lame duck as he could not stand for ree******n. We were guaranteed to have a new President, either Republican or Democrat, after the e******n. In 2020, there is no guarantee of a new President as the current President is standing for ree******n. Maybe the new Congress, when sworn in in January 2021, should pass legislation putting a moratorium on Supreme Court nominations six months prior to the P**********l e******n.

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. Loc: Pa

Seth wrote:

Meanwhile, your ilk is perfectly at home canonizin... (show quote)

You’re just a loose cannon with no fact based statements to contribute to the conversation

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. Loc: Pa

Kickaha wrote:

This has been stated many times, the situation is ... (show quote)

That would make sense