The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don’t subscribe to the WSJ so unfortunately I can’t read that article, where are you going with that point that we have a black abortion problem?

Actually the article makes the case that the strongest determination in abortions is marriage status. The link I posted in response to G1 also shows that, with something like 85% of abortions are given to unwed pregnancies, and 15% to women who are married. Tie that with the destruction of the black family due to the insane war on drugs, and marijuana in particular, and you see where this country (both parties) have decimated black lives. It's a sad state that this fact gets overridden by the politics of liberals and conservatives vying to pump up their base.

Focusing on the sanctity of life, and the value of strong families, used to be a big part of what made the US a strong nation. Now we get parasitic politicians on both sides of the aisle who focus on single issue politics to whip core constituencies into frenzies. It has gone to a whole new level since Trump took office, and yes Trump is to blame for the blatant spewing of anti-civil discourse rhetoric, and I see the left to blame as well for constantly turning things into "THE GREATEST THREAT EVER" every chance they get.

The Supreme Court ruling opens the door for banning abortion, that is true. It also opens the door to states listening to their local electorate and legalizing abortion. The 10th amendment works when people let it. Most laws should not be federalized or back-doored into law by claiming actions not found in the Constitution as Constitutional Rights. And for G1, there is a method to make abortion a constitutional right, amend the constitution. We have done it to correct the biases and errors of the white male land owners that put it together before, and we have done it to correct the errors of amendments (ie Prohibition then no prohibition). If Abortion is to be a right preserved by the Constitution, amend it.

ps. I don't subscribe to WSJ either. Their paywall is weird, sometimes I can read articles, other times it is blocked.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually the article makes the case that the strongest determination in abortions is marriage status. The link I posted in response to G1 also shows that, with something like 85% of abortions are given to unwed pregnancies, and 15% to women who are married. Tie that with the destruction of the black family due to the insane war on drugs, and marijuana in particular, and you see where this country (both parties) have decimated black lives. It's a sad state that this fact gets overridden by the politics of liberals and conservatives vying to pump up their base.

Focusing on the sanctity of life, and the value of strong families, used to be a big part of what made the US a strong nation. Now we get parasitic politicians on both sides of the aisle who focus on single issue politics to whip core constituencies into frenzies. It has gone to a whole new level since Trump took office, and yes Trump is to blame for the blatant spewing of anti-civil discourse rhetoric, and I see the left to blame as well for constantly turning things into "THE GREATEST THREAT EVER" every chance they get.

The Supreme Court ruling opens the door for banning abortion, that is true. It also opens the door to states listening to their local electorate and legalizing abortion. The 10th amendment works when people let it. Most laws should not be federalized or back-doored into law by claiming actions not found in the Constitution as Constitutional Rights. And for G1, there is a method to make abortion a constitutional right, amend the constitution. We have done it to correct the biases and errors of the white male land owners that put it together before, and we have done it to correct the errors of amendments (ie Prohibition then no prohibition). If Abortion is to be a right preserved by the Constitution, amend it.

ps. I don't subscribe to WSJ either. Their paywall is weird, sometimes I can read articles, other times it is blocked.

You still don't address the lying by the SCJ's? Again you try to justify they say one thing and do another with your defense of abortion as oppose to stopping kids murdered in their classrooms.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

You still don't address the lying by the SCJ's? Again you try to justify they say one thing and do another with your defense of abortion as oppose to stopping kids murdered in their classrooms.

Any politician who thought these justices were going to forever uphold Roe were smoking something, or just looking for political cover. I don't spend a whole lotta time worrying about that, any more than a liberal justice evading a conservative's question. The Senate members that confirmed each justice had years and years of case history to know where a candidate stood. That is how we all knew this day was coming when the justices were appointed.

I don't oppose stopping kids murdered in classrooms, on the contrary I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the rates. We should and can do both.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Any politician who thought these justices were going to forever uphold Roe were smoking something, or just looking for political cover. I don't spend a whole lotta time worrying about that, any more than a liberal justice evading a conservative's question. The Senate members that confirmed each justice had years and years of case history to know where a candidate stood. That is how we all knew this day was coming when the justices were appointed.

I don't oppose stopping kids murdered in classrooms, on the contrary I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the rates. We should and can do both.

These people are Supreme Court Justice's of the United States of America their word should be gold , it's not but that doesn't seem to bother you.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

These people are Supreme Court Justice's of the United States of America their word should be gold , it's not but that doesn't seem to bother you.

I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over it, no. Anymore than I would if one of the liberal justices shockingly voted liberal after appeasing conservatives in the Senate.

The Roe V Wade test for Supreme Court Justices was a bogus question to begin with. It is a 50 year old "precedent" with questionable origins. That the Democratic Senators used it for years to pound conservative justices into submission is a bigger issue for me honestly. The question for SC Justices should be how they read the constitution and apply it, not individual partisan policies.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over it, no. Anymore than I would if one of the liberal justices shockingly voted liberal after appeasing conservatives in the Senate.

The Roe V Wade test for Supreme Court Justices was a bogus question to begin with. It is a 50 year old "precedent" with questionable origins. That the Democratic Senators used it for years to pound conservative justices into submission is a bigger issue for me honestly. The question for SC Justices should be how they read the constitution and apply it, not individual partisan policies.

LOL, "It is a 50 year old "precedent" with questionable origins." BS, it was established law. Changing it was politically motivated and no other reason. JHC.