Chief Justice Roberts - Don't you go wobbly knees on us ...

[rayg]

You do not have a legal or religious definition where life begins...either in the courts, or in your bible.

Does a heart beat count?

[togor]

Roberts is about as stalwart as a wet rag. As loyal as a Judas.
If he votes to uphold Roe/Wade after members were threatened,
he'll single-handedly destroy the Court's credibility.
Of course he'll have help from the liberals, but that's to be expected.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ch...20/id/1075159/

You read all the stupid sites don't you.

Don't know how the decision will come down but only a fool cheers a court taking away rights. Because no mistake, any amendment, even the second, can be twisted by clever lawyers in this day and age to mean pretty much anything. So if Roberts understands that and you don't, then Roberts 1, DT 0.

[lyman]

You do not have a legal or religious definition where life begins...either in the courts, or in your bible.

true,

however if our past Governor had got his way, here in Va , when the child is born, it would be set aside on a table until the mother decided if she wanted it or not,
if not, it would not be taken care off, and let die,,

post birth abortion, a DNC plan,,

[Roadkingtrax]

I thought the DNC didn't have a plan?

[lyman]

I thought the DNC didn't have a plan?

they have a plan, always have,

the GOP can't seem to plan what they want for lunch,

[togor]

You do not have a legal or religious definition where life begins...either in the courts, or in your bible.

Indeed his church does not argue from scripture, but rather something called "natural law" which is ironic because it is also natural law that the strong prevail over the weak, which is contrary to his scripture.

So I guess his church follows scripture, except when it doesn't, and believes in natural law, except when it doesn't.

Better to just defend the right, and hope that God intervenes as necessary in the individual cases. That's a far superior (and more genuinely faithful) approach than what the faithless banners offer. If they truly believed in the power of their God they would be fine with that.

[Roadkingtrax]

Indeed his church does not argue from scripture, but rather something called "natural law" which is ironic because it is also natural law that the strong prevail over the weak, which is contrary to his scripture.

So I guess his church follows scripture, except when it doesn't, and believes in natural law, except when it doesn't.

Better to just defend the right, and hope that God intervenes as necessary in the individual cases. That's a far superior (and more genuinely faithful) approach than what the faithless banners offer. If they truly believed in the power of their God they would be fine with that.

Indeed.

One must remember the view of those religions that allow the practice of abortion. Who decides which religion makes the rules? I think the founders already provided a path of "separation" for us all to follow...at least in spirit, or is that Holy Ghost?

[RED]

More gibberish and double talk. If you think about RIGHTS, think about State Rights. Yes, according to the US Constitution, States and their Legislatures do have RIGHTS. Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people,

Roe v. Wade has always been unconstitutional because it takes rights from the States and their people to enact laws concerning themselves. Show me where the Constitution dictates the Federal Government as the single administrator of medical practices.

[Vern Humphrey]

Roberts has been attacked for joining the majority in the Obamacare decision, however when the Chief Justice joins the majority he gets to write the opinion. The others have to go along with it, Roberts' opinion was that Obamacare was a tax, not a regulation of commerce. Congress has the authority to levy taxes-and repeal them.

No it does not.

US Constitution: Article 1, section 2:

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

In other words, the only constitutional DIRECT tax (a tax paid by the individual, not based on a transaction such as import duties) is a POLL tax, where each person pays the same tax. Obamacare obviously doesn't meet this definition.

The requirement to apportion direct taxes among the states is modified by the 16th Amendment:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

But the Obamacare tax is NOT an income tax, and hence is unconstitutional.

Roberts was dead wrong.

[Roadkingtrax]

More gibberish and double talk. If you think about RIGHTS, think about State Rights. Yes, according to the US Constitution, States and their Legislatures do have RIGHTS. Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people,

Roe v. Wade has always been unconstitutional because it takes rights from the States and their people to enact laws concerning themselves. Show me where the Constitution dictates the Federal Government as the single administrator of medical practices.

Nice try.

It was about a woman's right and liberty to privacy.

[RED]

And where in the Constitution lies the right for a mother to murder her children? Yes the same Constitution that enables States to execute murderers allows them to define the word, murder.

[togor]

More gibberish and double talk. If you think about RIGHTS, think about State Rights. Yes, according to the US Constitution, States and their Legislatures do have RIGHTS. Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people,

Roe v. Wade has always been unconstitutional because it takes rights from the States and their people to enact laws concerning themselves. Show me where the Constitution dictates the Federal Government as the single administrator of medical practices.

RED never heard of the Bill of Rights.

And RED would literally see individual rights taken away and put in the hands of the government. "Oh, but it's the state government so that's okay". Tell that to the person who had their rights taken away.

In the time of the founders, a fertilized egg was a child????! Give me a break.

So can't justify the ban from scripture.

Can't justify it from natural law.

Can't justify it from Originalism.

This is just a a group of radicals trying to impose their vision on the country. The overreach will bring the backlash.

[lyman]

Nice try.

It was about a woman's right and liberty to privacy.

correct, but only because the courts and the legislature did some origami with the constitution and related docs,

this, ,IIRC, was part of the heartburn over whether or not RvW would be able to stick,

- - - Updated - - -

RED never heard of the Bill of Rights.

And RED would literally see individual rights taken away and put in the hands of the government. "Oh, but it's the state government so that's okay". Tell that to the person who had their rights taken away.

In the time of the founders, a fertilized egg was a child????! Give me a break.

So can't justify the ban from scripture.

Can't justify it from natural law.

Can't justify it from Originalism.

This is just a a group of radicals trying to impose their vision on the country. The overreach will bring the backlash.

wow,

RED gets all worked up and usually wraps himself in a flag,
togor gets all works up, takes the shallow view of history and calls folks that don't think like he does a radical,

[RED]

Indeed.

One must remember the view of those religions that allow the practice of abortion. Who decides which religion makes the rules? I think the founders already provided a path of "separation" for us all to follow...at least in spirit, or is that Holy Ghost?

Religions do not even come close to having a role in this argument. It is strictly a Constitutional question. Does the States have a right to pass laws that are not within the rights reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution or not. If not, then we can do away with the States entirely.

If we do not need National Borders we surely do not need State borders. At the same time we could get rid of the Congress and allow the National, Socialist, Democrats to rewrite our laws and make it legal for mothers to kill their children at any age.

[Roadkingtrax]

Kitchen sink argument as always. State's rights is the ol' Civil War argument. My response was an answer to Vern, and not your sidebar rant.

My point stands.