Law John Roberts joins liberal justices as Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law...

[Trotsky]

Like I've said in other threads, our Supreme Court has always falsely been advertised as having four liberal justices, four conservative justices, and one swing vote.

In reality what we had until recently was four liberal justices, three reliably conservative justices, and two swing votes in Justices Kennedy and Roberts.

Now we finally have the court that was advertised to us for the last several years.

Aww, truly spoken as someone who knows literally nothing about the Supreme Court.

Roberts and Kennedy both reversed 70 years of labor rights, 40 years of campaign finance law, and basically all of 2nd Amendment law. Also, Kennedy's swing vote status was largely based on his own vapid self-aggrandizing. Kennedy was a shitty jurist and is a shitty person. Roberts is easily the best modern conservative jurist.

They are both more conservative than the moderate conservatives of yesteryear like O'Connor. Hell, on campaign finance and second amendment, they're farther to the right than Warren fucking Burger.

Most of the likes for your post are unsurprising except for @HockeyBjj and @TheWorm. I hope you guys revisit the issue, as it's pure fiction. Might as well be a post saying that the USSR won the Cold War. I'll give @Son of Jamin a pass because he's not American.

 

[tonni]

God, you are a semantic nightmare to read. Good luck to anyone who tries to reason with you if you are going to shift, twist, ignore, and change the meanings of words to fit whatever argument you are trying to make at the given moment.

Greek statue avatar profiles are usually like that

 

[Trotsky]

God, you are a semantic nightmare to read. Good luck to anyone who tries to reason with you if you are going to shift, twist, ignore, and change the meanings of words to fit whatever argument you are trying to make at the given moment.

Wow, he really abortioned you in that argument.

 

[Dr J]

You missed a bigger more obvious fallacy in his logic.

Conservatives want to withhold Federal funding from any state that doesn't do what Trump wants. Trump has threatened to withhold Federal funding for numerous spiteful reasons in regards to immigration.

Even threatened California to withhold disaster relief funding for the wildfires.

So basically go fuck yourself @Dr J

Conservatives only care about states' rights in regards to the right to own slaves.

Quite the little drama queen you are.

Federal funding being withheld from states for not complying with federal law isn’t quite the crushing blow to states’ rights that you’re making it out to be. If you want to argue that immigration shouldn’t be under federal control to begin with, then that’s a different topic altogether.

The disaster relief funding seemed over the top, but I never heard much of it after a couple threats. You can barely call that an issue—and it probably wasn’t even Trump’s dumbest tweet of the week.

 

[Dr J]

is that why the right wants a federal ban on abortion? State's rights?

Mostly just an overturn of Roe v Wade. If you sick leftists want to allow baby killing in your own states, you won’t hear a legal complaint from me.

 

[Dr J]

I guess that means states with legal marijuana won't have to worry about federal intervention. But they doooooooo

The left loves federal government expansion until it comes back to bite them in the ass. Democrats made the bed, now they get to lie in it.

 

[Rational Poster]

Quite the little drama queen you are.

Federal funding being withheld from states for not complying with federal law isn’t quite the crushing blow to states’ rights that you’re making it out to be. If you want to argue that immigration shouldn’t be under federal control to begin with, then that’s a different topic altogether.

The disaster relief funding seemed over the top, but I never heard much of it after a couple threats. You can barely call that an issue—and it probably wasn’t even Trump’s dumbest tweet of the week.

States have no obligation to enforce Federals laws unless they are specifically allocated Federal funds to do so.

That's the whole point of States' rights.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

I place great importance upon sentience. An 11 week fetus is in no way sentient, so arguing that you're murdering a human being is absurd to me. If you've seen real carnage and death, the idea that aborting an 11 week or younger fetus is equivalent, I must say your judgement is poor.

It's not about judgement, it's about visceral reaction at that point. Maybe I'm unlike you, sure. Some people would describe MMA as gruesome, but we don't. But I can tell you that an abortion is harder for me to watch than a shooting, yeah. It's not as bad as watching someone burn, as that's the worst thing I've seen in person (I was first responder on the scene for a prop plane crash, some of the people survived the crash but were trapped inside being burned/suffocated. Three survived and three died). A beheading is worse for sure also, even though like an abortion I've only ever seen that on video. By far the grossest are the bodies that have died and been unattended to for some time, covered in old vomit, feces and blisters, teeming with maggots. I can say all of those things are gruesome imo, and so is a shattered femur from a car accident, without saying any are equivalent to one another.

Again, I don't know if a fetus is sentient. I think the latest science says a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, but I'm not any kind of expert on that. But I agree that sentience is the important factor to consider, not memory.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I still can’t fathom why it’s such an important political issue in the US. Almost every other country seems to have whatever laws they have on the issue, whether relaxed or very restrictive, and yet the US can’t seem to figure out what it wants to do, so it’s a political issue that somehow refuses to die. Why can’t the blue states just allow it, the red states restrict it, and then everyone’s happy?

Abortion has somehow become the penultimate expression of women's freedom in this country. It's beyond twisted. It's such a sick hill to want to die on.

 

[Sketch]

@Dr J destroying the left ITT.

 

[Dr J]

States have no obligation to enforce Federals laws unless they are specifically allocated Federal funds to do so.

That's the whole point of States' rights.

Let me rephrase. I’m under the impression that the withholding federal funding y’all kicked off after CA politicians were interfering with ICE raids. I’ve got no problems if states get strongarmed for stunts like that.

If that’s not what you’re referring to, I otherwise agree with the above. Likewise in the marijuana debate.

 

[Rational Poster]

Let me rephrase. I’m under the impression that the withholding federal funding y’all kicked off after CA politicians were interfering with ICE raids. I’ve got no problems if states get strongarmed for stunts like that.

If that’s not what you’re referring to, I otherwise agree with the above. Likewise in the marijuana debate.

The threats started when California refused to detain illegals for misdemeanors and other minor crimes in their prisons for ICE.

 

[Thurisaz]

I'm talking about lacking a nervous system and a brain. Quite more than an emotional difference.

I don't see why the difference is relevant. Is it somehow less evil to kill someone at certain age than another?

 

[Thurisaz]

It would take an order of magnitude more effort to explain your bullshit than for you to keep producing it.

As I thought, you merely accuse but cannot back it up. Liar.

 

[Darkballs]

I don't see why the difference is relevant. Is it somehow less evil to kill someone at certain age than another?

An 11-week old zygote that lacks even a nervous system, or brain for it to connect to, is not going to "suffer" in the same way an 11-year old would.

Are you just playing stupid? Regardless, whatever you are doing now, stop. Get in your car. Drive to wherever your high-school biology teacher currently resides. Knock on the door. When they answer, tell them that they've completely failed you.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Aww, truly spoken as someone who knows literally nothing about the Supreme Court.

Roberts and Kennedy both reversed 70 years of labor rights, 40 years of campaign finance law, and basically all of 2nd Amendment law. Also, Kennedy's swing vote status was largely based on his own vapid self-aggrandizing. Kennedy was a shitty jurist and is a shitty person. Roberts is easily the best modern conservative jurist.

They are both more conservative than the moderate conservatives of yesteryear like O'Connor. Hell, on campaign finance and second amendment, they're farther to the right than Warren fucking Burger.

Most of the likes for your post are unsurprising except for @HockeyBjj and @TheWorm. I hope you guys revisit the issue, as it's pure fiction. Might as well be a post saying that the USSR won the Cold War. I'll give @Son of Jamin a pass because he's not American.

There’s a simple explanation for my like on his post: I’m not American. What am I supposed to know about the SCOTUS?

 

[Thurisaz]

But what matters in a human being is sentience and the capacity for suffering.

If the growing baby isn't killed, it normally develops both, so why that point? The inescapable fact is that a new human life has already begun. You might just as well state that what matters in a human being is whether they grow pubes at the moment or not.

 

[Thurisaz]

An 11-week old zygote that lacks even a nervous system, or brain for it to connect to, is not going to "suffer" in the same way an 11-year old would.

Are you just playing stupid?

The words you're looking for are consistent and logical. The question is not about suffering. It is about whether it is anyone's right to kill a human being that has not merited death by any fault of his.

 

[hillelslovak87]

If the growing baby isn't killed, it normally develops both, so why that point? The inescapable fact is that a new human life has already begun. You might just as well state that what matters in a human being is whether they grow pubes at the moment or not.

Where do you draw the line at where life starts? Your reasoning seems incredibly arbitrary. Given advances in genetics, human beings can be grown from skin cells. Did one commit an abortion in scratching their nose, depriving the world of countless potential humans?

Simply calling a fetus, which is the size of a fig at 11 weeks a baby does not make it so. Calling it murder does not make it so, because a fetus is not a sentient human being, no matter the potential in utero.

Your last sentence is cheap and lazy.

 

[hillelslovak87]

The words you're looking for are consistent and logical. The question is not about suffering. It is about whether it is anyone's right to kill a human being that has not merited death by any fault of his.

How can a fetus lacking a brain be a human being capable of being murdered?