Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Doc Holliday said:
Booray said:
He Hate Me said:
Booray said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?
Cavemen are so funny.
Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.
Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.
The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.
Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.
Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.
I'll wait.
Honest question.......
A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.
That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .
Still feel that way ?
Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?
Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.
That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed
But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .
That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .
I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.
My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."
In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.
As opposed to "should we have abortion in the United States?", which is a political question.