quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
It’s a violation of Virginia state law too. But I don’t see any state troopers locking up protesters in VA streets in front of the judges. Their governor obviously doesn’t care.

Not sure that the Governor is the issue. Gary Settle (VSP Superintendent) is a piece of shit and he's not gonna do anything that makes waves for anyone left leaning, regardless of what the Governor says.

Then he should be fired on the spot. I'm guessing that he is not in an elected position and that the Governor is his boss.

There's no basis in the language of the constitution to back Roe v. Wade. It was based on Griswald v. Connecticut. That decision also has no basis in the constitution, and the authors of the opinion essentially admitted such. It will be interesting to see if overturning Row starts the ball rolling on overturning Griswald.

But this puts the issues those cases cover back in the directly political realm. I think it's somewhat likely that congress may pass a federal preemption against state laws banning abortion. It can easily get past the House. It probably can't get past a filibuster in the Senate. The question is whether the Dems might think they're strong enough to get rid of the filibuster for that issue (like they did with Judge confirmations.) Of course, this would set up a 10th amendment challenge. Given how much the court has allowed the power of the federal government to expand, I wouldn't count on that working.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
<snip>

Roe v. Wade was a disaster in 1973. It forced all states to be Abortion States, just as the Dred Scott decision forced all states to be Slave States. A proposed national Abortion Rights law by the Democrats would be just as devastating.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Then he should be fired on the spot. I'm guessing that he is not in an elected position and that the Governor is his boss.

Yes, unfortunately, Gov. Younkin did us an injustice with keeping Gary Settle as Superintendent. Should have been gone day 1.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
It’s a violation of Virginia state law too. But I don’t see any state troopers locking up protesters in VA streets in front of the judges. Their governor obviously doesn’t care.

Not sure that the Governor is the issue. Gary Settle (VSP Superintendent) is a piece of shit and he's not gonna do anything that makes waves for anyone left leaning, regardless of what the Governor says.

Then he should be fired on the spot. I'm guessing that he is not in an elected position and that the Governor is his boss.

The Virginia law applies to Virginia Judges, any action against a Federal Judge, is a crime under 18 U.S.C. , the state definition of judge is limited members of the Commonwealth’s Judiciary.

We have a case in Massachusetts where a state judge is claiming judicial immunity, however it is state statute granting immunity for violations of Massachusetts law, she’s charged with a Federal offense, US Court of Appeals has ruled state immunity not applicable to Federal Offenses and protection for state Judicial officers is for state crimes and torts. Same as state witness or obstruction charges, state judge not federal judge.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You gotta admit, on one level this is comical in the extreme. SCOTUS has not rendered a final opinion on this case yet. No one knows for sure what will eventually come out of the high court, yet all these sub-zero IQ retards have gone completely mad. Simply mind boggling and disgusting.

So what will it look like when the final opinion is released and it is the same as the draft?
I go to wager we ain’t seen nothing yet. In a way would not be surprised if it makes the Summer of 2020 seem calm.
They are rallying the troops.

^^^ In Seattle the Mayor called 2021 'The Summer of Love'. That Mayor is thankfully gone.

The usual crazies will howl and glue themselves to each other, but the economy isn't conducive to a summer of protest. I have no doubt the broken media is all in, but I just don't see this as an issue that replaces the economy or liberty on voters care meters. Interested to see how it goes. I find it incredible that it was ever accepted that our Constitution contained language suggesting a 'right' to abortion.

All this idiotic posturing.

Senate fails to advance bill to guarantee abortion access nationwide

Oh, look, here's something new- leftists are "outraged".

Leftists lose it over Joe Manchin thwarting Dem abortion bill

Janet Yellen:

"In many cases, abortions are of teenage women – particularly low-income and often black — who aren't in a position to be able to care for children."

Sen Tim Scott:

“I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here...”

quote:

"In many cases, abortions are of teenage women"

wait, what?

quote:

......particularly low-income and often black — who aren't in a position to be able to care for children."

So, yeah, her solution is to just kill those children, um, okay. Yellen sounds like she's right out of Germany's 1939 Nazi party.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: radioman,

Tonight on CBS Evening News as part of her 'Abortion Rights Showdown' piece, Norah O'Donnell stated 'the Supreme Court could be on the verge of overturning the Constitution Right to an abortion'.

I'll need to consult my paper copy Constitutional booklet to see where I missed that right. ..

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:
Tonight on CBS Evening News as part of her 'Abortion Rights Showdown' piece, Norah O'Donnell stated 'the Supreme Court could be on the verge of overturning the Constitution Right to an abortion'.

I'll need to consult my paper copy Constitutional booklet to see where I missed that right. ..

Somehow they see the Constitution guaranteeing them their "right" to an abortion, yet "Shall Not Be Infringed" is open to interpretation.

https://www.aol.com/news/rober...probe-192321383.html

One of the two Politico reporters who obtained the Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade questions whether Chief Justice John Roberts has the legal authority to order his fellow justices and their clerks to cooperate in an internal investigation into who leaked the document.

“It’s not clear he has the right to order anybody to cooperate,” said Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico and lead author of last week’s bombshell story

“If one justice were to hypothetically say, ‘My clerks are not going to be interviewed. I’m not going to be interviewed. We’ll see you later,’ it’s not clear to me [Roberts] can tell them, ‘I’m sorry, Justice blank, you have to do this.’ Under what authority?”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hey Josh, let's make it simpler. Was it Elizabeth Deutsch ?

Bro vs Wade

Schumer's bill is a wish list on the subject. They are one SCOTUS seat away from putting this vision right back up if Roe is overturned. Here's what I'd like to know. Usually when politicians go to the mat protecting something its a quarter ideology and three quarters about the money. I'm curious about the second half. How much money does the pro choice lobby give to the left? How much money do the people involved in providing the procedure make? I mean these people are doctors. They're familiar with all things medical. They know exactly what they're doing. So, its got to be a lot of money to get them to not only do it, but protect it so.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:


Oh, look, here's something new- leftists are "outraged".

Leftists lose it over Joe Manchin thwarting Dem abortion bill

I don't understand how it came up for a vote. Doesn't the senate still have the Filibuster rule that would take 60 votes to overcome?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I don't understand how it came up for a vote. Doesn't the senate still have the Filibuster rule that would take 60 votes to overcome?

That was the vote to end debate on the proposed law. It didn't even get a majority of senators to end debate so the law essentially dies. This was not a filibuster since the bill never even got more than a majority of senators voting in favor of it.

But yes, it would've needed 60 votes to end debate. They only got 49. Hence, not a filibuster. The minority didn't overrule the majority, if that makes sense. So if the media or no-good democrats say it was struck down by the filibuster, they are lying are being misleading.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I don't understand how it came up for a vote. Doesn't the senate still have the Filibuster rule that would take 60 votes to overcome?

That was the vote to end debate on the proposed law. It didn't even get a majority of senators to end debate so the law essentially dies. This was not a filibuster since the bill never even got more than a majority of senators voting in favor of it.

Regardless, this disastrous, barbaric, bill got way more votes in the House and Senate than it ever should have gotten. Its absolutely disgusting to consider where we are on this issue right now.