Justice101

It is an i***tic pejorative used by the Left instead of GOP, the Q insinuates that we all supposedly follow "Q" conspiracy theories. I have no idea what they are-just rumors from the left.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

He is the biggest liar in office right now. Ex: I've never talked to my son or brother about their business (I guess they didn't have conversations during those golf outing, dinners and meetings in the white house". When he stole someone else's work in order to get though college "plagiarism"-that's considered theft and lying, he promised to unite the people but spends a great deal of time calling the right names, he promised to Build Back Better, the only one's doing better are he and his cronies, my bank account isn't showing any improvement at all as a matter of fact-it's worse then it's ever been.

straightUp Loc: California

As a general rule, we don't want liars on the bench for reasons that I'm sure you are aware of. More than any other figure in Washington, a Supreme Court Justice should be impervious to corruption and if a person can lie to get that job then they can lie to cover corruption.

So who lied?

straightUp Loc: California

That's what the OP is calling a lie? Huh.

It was never settled law by the way... It has always been a legal precedent, it was never a law. Neither parties ever made a move to legislate on the issue until a few weeks ago. The Republicans could have overruled Roe v Wade on the Hill on several occasions where they controlled the government with the needed margins over the course of the last 50 years, but they never did. Leaving the the issue "semi-settled" on a court decision always made it a great campaign platform for the Republicans, and if the Republicans weren't going to legislate, the Democrats figured they didn't need to either.

...Until now...

As you folks probably know, Democrats are now pushing legislation through the House to codify the court decision into law in response to the foreshadowing of a draconian overturn of Roe v Wade by a lopsided bench. As everyone, including Schumer knows, the Republicans in Senate will stop it. "Too little too late, Schumer!"

So... what I wonder about is what this means if the 1972 decision is overturned... A lot of the states have automatic laws already in place, so as soon as banning a******n is no longer held to be unconstitutional, their laws activate and a******n is illegal. So, if/when that happens and we join the Muslim world in being the only populations subjected to religiously-driven laws that ban a******ns. Should we expect more similarities to come next? Is there a Christian version of Sharia Law?

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

There a Christian version of Sharia Law

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

You don't have a frickin' clue!

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Did the republican’s version of Sharia Law touch a nerve Parky?

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

It's pretty easy to react to a LIE!

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Okay. We have different perspectives.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Don’t you just love George Carlin??? One funny dude…

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

What you say is true however you can as well just replace Democrats never moving forward to establish Roe versus Wade as law, as well, but they liked the ruling so they had no reason to challenge it, even when there has been such diversity and challenge over those same 50 years, yes?? Always used as athreat that the Republicans were going to overturn but no action to change that campaign slogan, by establishing a law when they had control of the house.

And then of course we also have whether or not it would ever pass the house given the diversity between them so they let it stand in its unfinished precedents until now when they don’t like the probable ruling by the Supreme Court to come out, unless they change their minds, which appears unlikely.. The house is so divided it is highly unlikely it’s going to pass. What’s ironic about it is that this is the worst in/party fighting over everything I’ve ever personally experienced by the different administrations and yet they’ve thrown that consideration to the wind. Perhaps they should’ve tried to throw that same consideration to the wind in the past? Or is it just simply common sense told them it would not pass so they could just dealt with it as it came up.?? And that would be for both parties strategy and recognition the fight would not go anywhere ..Certainly seems the logical conclusion anyway…

As for your last paragraph the only thing that will change is that it becomes a “states right” to determine what laws they’re going to put in place. The rest of it isn’t worth commenting on but your sarcasm is noted… Alitos draft fails to address “religious consideration,” of course, but no doubt lends at least some reasoning to their decision....

Example; page 5 of his brief: no halfmeasures” are available and thatwe must cither rea- firm or overrule Roe and Casey. Id., at 50. ‘We hold that Roe andCasey must be overruled. The Con- stitution makes no reference to a******n, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in- cluding the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey nowchiefly rely—the Due Process Clauseofthe Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are notmentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation's his- tory and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) The right to a******n docs not fall within this category. Until the latter part ofthe 20th century, sucha right was entirely unknown inAmericanlaw. Indeed,when the Four- teenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made a******na crime at all stages of pregnancy. The a******nrightis also critically differentfrom anyother right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment's protectionof“liberty.” Roe's defenders char- acterize the a******n right as similar to the rights recog- nized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but a******n is fundamentally different, as bothRoeand Casey acknowl- edged, becauseitdestroys whatthosedecisions called“fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “un- born human being" Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey's controlling 5Miss CodeAnn.S414L191(40).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-a******n-draft-opinion-00029473

microphor Loc: Home is TN

So quit believing the liars! Try using the ability to reason instead of buying something someone else tells you.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I can't speak to Sharia, but as for your claims about conservatives and Republicans, you are deliberately lying. Every single statement in your list is a lie. You know it. We know it. The only excuse you can possibly have is that you copied and pasted something you thought was snarky. Lies are not snarky, RR. They are just lies.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You are now exactly what you claim Trump is (and is not).

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Every single statement?

The only one that is iffy is the third one, war. All the rest are true.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

No, they're a lie from the pit of hell.