American Taliban | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

American Taliban

bitzz said:
It could have been VERY simple for Scotus to rule on Roe v Wade, but give the states time to work out ruling on this VERY important decision. They had Roe v Wade for 50yrs, one more ain't gonna hurt... and no one could get a Scotus challenge in a year.

A lot of the NO abortion states are falling back on laws from the 1800s... which seems kinda draconian... this whole affair seems kinda draconian to me.
Click to expand...
Individual states don't require transition time to figure things out -- they've already done that. Of the states that may enact restrictions, only Michigan and Wisconsin fall back on pre-Roe laws, the other 23 have updated their State laws and or constitution to reflect the possibility RvW was overturned. Not all have put them into effect as most require a state senate approval to activate, and the Gov of Michigan is gonna fight to go in the other direction -- guarantee the right of choice -- and has already issued an exec order that prohibits law enforcement from prosecuting against their old law.
bitzz said:
... but that doesn't fit the narrative. I'm not sure what the narrative IS, but it peaked with Trump. A government's MAIN task is to unite it's people. It seems to me Trump did the opposite and it made a few people happy... VERY FEW, and ****** off everyone else.
Click to expand...
That's true -- but not specifically a Trump thing, the great division happened during Obama's term -- fuelled by his voting partisanship, refusal to deal across the aisle, and the use of executive orders to circumvent the democratic process. Trump inherited a divided nation and a divided highly partisan congress. he carried on with the same methods used by Obama and like Obama put zero effort into unifying.

Biden has done a lot more -- at least he's trying to unify. He's getting way more bipartisan wins than Obama & Trump, and he's done a respectable job unifying NATO allies. He also has a small bi-partisan win on gun control rolling through Congress.
 
800over said:
How does the minority get what they want.....through denying Democratic Judges/placing judges who lie to get on the SCOTUS. Saved you a lot of typing for next time.
Click to expand...
That sounds like quote from the Libtard Book of Whines.
 
DownUnder said:
Whataboutism? Or should she have not been allowed the choice? Personally I don't care if people get abortions, I'm not happy my tax dollars pay for them but there is a 1000 other things the govt wastes out tax money on too.

I am surprised in this day and age with the amount of STDs and crap going around people are still willing to bareback/get barebacked by strangers/people they don't intend to have children with. Talk about having zero forethought.
Click to expand...
So many reasons for an abortion.

In the first month I was dating my wife, I got her pregnant. She was on allot of bad meds for a chronic illness that would likely leave us with a severely "special" child and possibly kill her. She insisted on protection but a new relationship can really put the condom stats to the test. I was always opposed to abortions but this made me see the light. Luckily things took care of themselves naturally.

Nearly ten years later when we have a surrogate carrying our twins, a different surrogate (who turned us down but was part of a facebook group) has an atopic pregnancy and had to have an abortion to save her life. Another friend of my wife also had an atopic pregnancy and required an abortion.

When doing the contract for the surrogate this is some of the hardest details to nail down. It's her body but our child (and money). Learned the term "selective reduction" if an abortion is needed to preserve the life of the surrogate or other twins/triplets.

People who want legal abortions don't want to have abortions. Its never a good time. Its desperation.
 
800over said:
Do you even know who Merrick Garland is? Pull your head out of the sand. Do you know what a filibuster is? do you understand how an amendment to the constitution occurs? Please do not answer that. We all know the answer.
Click to expand...
I can help with this one.

Garland was nominated for Scotus by Obama, at a time when there was no clear path to confirmation -- basically throwing his chance of joining Scotus under the bus. Biden did appoint him US AG, that's not as big as a Scotus position, but it's the Silver medal for a Judge.

A filibuster is a technique used to delay voting on a bill by prolonging debate indefinitely, or until cloture ends it.

Constitutional amendments are tricky, all the stars and moons need to line up for one of these. 2/3rd of Congress or 2/3rds of states are needed to kick off the process. After that 75% of the states need to ratify the final amendment before it takes effect.
 
Mad Mike said:
I can help with this one.

Garland was nominated for Scotus by Obama, at a time when there was no clear path to confirmation -- basically throwing his chance of joining Scotus under the bus. Biden did appoint him US AG, that's not as big as a Scotus position, but it's the Silver medal for a Judge.

A filibuster is a technique used to delay voting on a bill by prolonging debate indefinitely, or until cloture ends it.

Constitutional amendments are tricky, all the stars and moons need to line up for one of these. 2/3rd of Congress or 2/3rds of states are needed to kick off the process. After that 75% of the states need to ratify the final amendment before it takes effect.
Click to expand...

Garland was blocked by O Connell with the excuse that it was nearly the end of Obama’s tenure (nomination March 2016) and too close to an election. Oddly the same issue wasn’t a factor with Trump and Amy Comey Barrett on September 29 2020 (6 months closer to an election than Garland).

Garland’s place was given to Gorsuch and swung the balance of the SCOTUS to the right.

Garland was actually a centrist.

This was the first time this had been done.

The absolute hypocrisy is pretty astounding. Personally, if we are going to go by the absolute letter of the law I’d like to see the justices that stated Roe Vs Wade was the established law of the land in their nominations and then subsequently ruled on an issue that they absolutely knew would invalidate it, be impeached and replaced by Biden’s nominees. What’s good for the goose etc.
 
jc100 said:
Garland was blocked by O Connell with the excuse that it was nearly the end of Obama’s tenure (nomination March 2016) and too close to an election. Oddly the same issue wasn’t a factor with Trump and Amy Comey Barrett on September 29 2020 (6 months closer to an election than Garland).

Garland’s place was given to Gorsuch and swung the balance of the SCOTUS to the right.

Garland was actually a centrist.

This was the first time this had been done.

The absolute hypocrisy is pretty astounding. Personally, if we are going to go by the absolute letter of the law I’d like to see the justices that stated Roe Vs Wade was the established law of the land in their nominations and then subsequently ruled on an issue that they absolutely knew would invalidate it, be impeached and replaced by Biden’s nominees. What’s good for the goose etc.
Click to expand...
You are correct, Garland was blocked -- the reason for that is one of the protocols as opposed to law. US Presidents in a 'lame duck' period near the end of their term (as was Obama at the time) historically reserved Scotus nomination for the next sworn-in POTUS. Obama broke this protocol, he knew full well Garland could not get confirmed with a GOP-controlled senate. He did it anyway -- basically scuttling Garland's SCOTUS opportunity. Trump also broke the protocol to a lesser degree when he nominated Coney Barrett -- he used the same dirtbag move Obama tried, only he wasn't lamed at the time so her confirmation proceeded.

I don't know if hypocrisy is the right word. Democracy is difficult and competitive and there aren't a lot of love-ins between parties. Watching events play out according to the rules is sometimes painful.

Finally, I doubt you will find any justice that clarified RvW was out of bounds. Answering that question with a definitive YES or NO would torpedo a confirmation, I'm pretty sure each Justice left the door wide open in their hearings.
 
In the meantime new California legislation mentions "perinatal".
 
Mad Mike said:
You are correct, Garland was blocked -- the reason for that is one of the protocols as opposed to law. US Presidents in a 'lame duck' period near the end of their term (as was Obama at the time) historically reserved Scotus nomination for the next sworn-in POTUS. Obama broke this protocol, he knew full well Garland could not get confirmed with a GOP-controlled senate. He did it anyway -- basically scuttling Garland's SCOTUS opportunity. Trump also broke the protocol to a lesser degree when he nominated Coney Barrett -- he used the same dirtbag move Obama tried, only he wasn't lamed at the time so her confirmation proceeded.

I don't know if hypocrisy is the right word. Democracy is difficult and competitive and there aren't a lot of love-ins between parties. Watching events play out according to the rules is sometimes painful.

Finally, I doubt you will find any justice that clarified RvW was out of bounds. Answering that question with a definitive YES or NO would torpedo a confirmation, I'm pretty sure each Justice left the door wide open in their hearings.
Click to expand...

No, this was the first time this had been denied (Obama). There was still 6 months to go! Barrett was sworn in in record time giving the lie to O’Connell’s words.

Lying under oath would appear to be pretty important for the highest judge in the land wouldn’t you think?

Republicans played hypocritical hardball hiding behind their warped interpretation of the rules. Democrats should be doing the same. What comes around goes around.
 
Mad Mike said:
I can help with this one.

Garland was nominated for Scotus by Obama, at a time when there was no clear path to confirmation -- basically throwing his chance of joining Scotus under the bus. Biden did appoint him US AG, that's not as big as a Scotus position, but it's the Silver medal for a Judge.

A filibuster is a technique used to delay voting on a bill by prolonging debate indefinitely, or until cloture ends it.

Constitutional amendments are tricky, all the stars and moons need to line up for one of these. 2/3rd of Congress or 2/3rds of states are needed to kick off the process. After that 75% of the states need to ratify the final amendment before it takes effect.
Click to expand...
I like how you parse things to pretend you don't know. Playing stupid is your forte....but it doesn't become you.
 
Mad Mike said:
You are correct, Garland was blocked -- the reason for that is one of the protocols as opposed to law. US Presidents in a 'lame duck' period near the end of their term (as was Obama at the time) historically reserved Scotus nomination for the next sworn-in POTUS. Obama broke this protocol, he knew full well Garland could not get confirmed with a GOP-controlled senate. He did it anyway -- basically scuttling Garland's SCOTUS opportunity. Trump also broke the protocol to a lesser degree when he nominated Coney Barrett -- he used the same dirtbag move Obama tried, only he wasn't lamed at the time so her confirmation proceeded.

I don't know if hypocrisy is the right word. Democracy is difficult and competitive and there aren't a lot of love-ins between parties. Watching events play out according to the rules is sometimes painful.

Finally, I doubt you will find any justice that clarified RvW was out of bounds. Answering that question with a definitive YES or NO would torpedo a confirmation, I'm pretty sure each Justice left the door wide open in their hearings.
Click to expand...
Protocols? There is no such protocol. It is something invented by the Republicans. The fact that you say that Obama Broke protocol means you have been drinking the Republican kool aid.
If you don't know if hypocrisy is the right word then you don't know what the word means.
feel free to read up:

en.wikipedia.org

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
jc100 said:
Come on…easily avoided? Condom breaks…young immature people get carried away…two people have a little too much to drink…..that’s a life sentence for the woman? She should just adjust to an altered existence because of one mistake? You know what’s easily avoided? An unwanted pregnancy through a simple medical procedure that is usually a woman’s last choice.
Click to expand...
It's OK to use sex and hedonism to sell everything on the planet, just don't make a mistake.

Pass a law that the father goes to jail if he doesn't give half his income for child support and the ruling will be reversed.

USA: Free to be dumb
 
jc100 said:
No, this was the first time this had been denied (Obama). There was still 6 months to go! Barrett was sworn in in record time giving the lie to O’Connell’s words.

Lying under oath would appear to be pretty important for the highest judge in the land wouldn’t you think?

Republicans played hypocritical hardball hiding behind their warped interpretation of the rules. Democrats should be doing the same. What comes around goes around.
Click to expand...
Obama was told by the Senate House leader that no confirmation would happen - I don't think this could have been made clearer. Dirty pool? Sure, politics can be a bloodsport, when the Dems controlled the house they blocked just about everything for a couple of years while they sought impeachment. Same ******** antics.

Try this search on Amy -- then read the umpteen opinions and media reports. It looks pretty clear she was pretty well prepared with sidestepping strategies.

amy barrett confirmation question on abortion - Google Search

www.google.com
 
Mad Mike said:
Obama was told by the Senate House leader that no confirmation would happen - I don't think this could have been made clearer. Dirty pool? Sure, politics can be a bloodsport, when the Dems controlled the house they blocked just about everything for a couple of years while they sought impeachment. Same ******** antics.

Try this search on Amy -- then read the umpteen opinions and media reports. It looks pretty clear she was pretty well prepared with sidestepping strategies.

amy barrett confirmation question on abortion - Google Search

www.google.com
Click to expand...
Sorry Mike, it’s pretty much universally accepted that Garland was blocked because of arbitrary republican dirty tricks. I’m just not buying that explanation as it flies against what we saw then and what we know now.

The Dems sought impeachment because Trump absolutely deserved impeachment. Again, not sure what the issue is here.
 
jc100 said:
Sorry Mike, it’s pretty much universally accepted that Garland was blocked because of arbitrary republican dirty tricks. I’m just not buying that explanation as it flies against what we saw then and what we know now.

The Dems sought impeachment because Trump absolutely deserved impeachment. Again, not sure what the issue is here.
Click to expand...
Universally accepted by Democrat supporters.

Third times the charm.
 
jc100 said:
Come on…easily avoided? Condom breaks…young immature people get carried away…two people have a little too much to drink…..that’s a life sentence for the woman? She should just adjust to an altered existence because of one mistake? You know what’s easily avoided? An unwanted pregnancy through a simple medical procedure that is usually a woman’s last choice.
Click to expand...
I'm with you 100%. My mom made that mistake at 17, thankfully my grandpa preferred shotguns over coathangers.

I'm pro-choice AND I'm a strong supporter of democracy. Despite my ideology, I can empathize with both sides of an argument and can usually find a middle ground that satisfies me. The problem with abortion is the unwillingness of either side to find that middle ground and work out a meaningful compromise. Will the pro-lifers back off and support abortion unconditionally for the first 8 weeks? Will the pro-choice back off and accept 8 weeks is enough time to decide? Can they agree that doctors should decide after some point?
jc100 said:
Sorry Mike, it’s pretty much universally accepted that Garland was blocked because of arbitrary republican dirty tricks. I’m just not buying that explanation as it flies against what we saw then and what we know now.

The Dems sought impeachment because Trump absolutely deserved impeachment. Again, not sure what the issue is here.
Click to expand...
I don't think Garland was a surprise. When the house leader says ther will be no vote on confirmation, what do you suppose he meant?

I don't disagree with impeachment efforts, what I disagree with is shutting down the house and govt to singularly focus on that objective.
 
woot said:
So many reasons for an abortion.

In the first month I was dating my wife, I got her pregnant. She was on allot of bad meds for a chronic illness that would likely leave us with a severely "special" child and possibly kill her. She insisted on protection but a new relationship can really put the condom stats to the test. I was always opposed to abortions but this made me see the light. Luckily things took care of themselves naturally.

Nearly ten years later when we have a surrogate carrying our twins, a different surrogate (who turned us down but was part of a facebook group) has an atopic pregnancy and had to have an abortion to save her life. Another friend of my wife also had an atopic pregnancy and required an abortion.

When doing the contract for the surrogate this is some of the hardest details to nail down. It's her body but our child (and money). Learned the term "selective reduction" if an abortion is needed to preserve the life of the surrogate or other twins/triplets.

People who want legal abortions don't want to have abortions. Its never a good time. Its desperation.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your real world context.
This means so much more coming from someone that has experience with the reality of these situations than some comment like “I don’t get it...just don’t have unprotected sex...gosh gee whillakers what’s wrong with some people...keep your legs closed” etc. (See above)
 
ugh On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state ( Ohio ) had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. :eek:
Click to expand...
 
The root causes need to be addressed at some point.
 
DownUnder said:
it amazes me how anytime something doesn't go the lefts way they want to cancel it and call it unfair/racist/misogynist...
Click to expand...
Its astonishing what the right will do to stay in power, no matter the costs. If things don't go the way they want, they simply refuse to play ball and go home. At least the left is attempting to be non-partisan. The right wants nothing to do with anything that in any perceived way will reduce their power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom