Politics Thread

[Juice]

Hysterical...I find it incredibly ironic when the left lamblasts CEOs for their "corporate greed" yet, think it's wonderful how corrupt union bosses are who dont give a flying flip about who they supposedly represent, but instead care about lining their own pockets.

Or when so called civil servants get elected into office and get rich as shit, i.e. the Clintons, Bernie, etc. Republican politicians do it too but when Bernie rants about corporate greed but owns like 3-4 houses, it comes off a bit stupid.

[bjf123]

GOP Sen. Collins says Roe v. Wade case is "settled law"

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law," she said. "It's clearly precedent. I always look for judges who respect precedent."

Like the Dred Scott ruling was settled law and precedent that should have been allowed to continue forever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Like the Dred Scott ruling was settled law and precedent that should have been allowed to continue forever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Get off Roe, literally the world is on the side of Roe. Even religious Europe is on this side. I have no issue going to the 22-24 week limit. That is where near all other countries are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Religious Europe?!? WTF? Europe is the least religious place on the planet.

[XU 87]

Get off Roe, literally the world is on the side of Roe. Even religious Europe is on this side. I have no issue going to the 22-24 week limit. That is where near all other countries are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a large difference between the people or their representatives voting to allow abortion (see Ireland) vs. some judges on a Supreme Court ruling that banning abortion is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision with virtually no legal support. The word "abortion" is not mentioned nor remotely discussed in the Constitution. A bunch of liberal justices who are pro-choice simply decided that abortion should be legal.

[ChicagoX]

There is a large difference between the people or their representatives voting to allow abortion (see Ireland) vs. some judges on a Supreme Court ruling that banning abortion is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision with virtually no legal support. The word "abortion" is not mentioned nor remotely discussed in the Constitution. A bunch of liberal justices who are pro-choice simply decided that abortion should be legal.

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it? Where in the Constitution does it say that? This is, by far, the most regressive administration I've seen in my lifetime.

[GoMuskies]

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it?

Of course not. Just perhaps, you know, the right not to be slaughtered. If I am mistaken in thinking pregnant women do not already have a right not to be slaughtered, I hope our legislators and courts change that post haste.

[ChicagoX]

Of course not. Just perhaps, you know, the right not to be slaughtered. If I am mistaken in thinking pregnant women do not already have a right not to be slaughtered, I hope our legislators and courts change that post haste.

By doing away with abortion rights, you are giving the fetus more rights than the woman carrying it. Only a bunch of religiously brainwashed old men could impose these type of regressive laws on women. Religious fundamentalism has no place in a free society. Republicans should consider spending more time worrying about people who have actually been born, particularly since they don't seem to care too much for people past the second trimester.

[X-man]

Thank goodness the Rs took control of the House in 2010 and turned the economic tide by slowing Obama's agenda which lead to >10% UE after his first two years.

On what basis do you make this claim? Most objective analysts would argue that if anything, the Republicans prevented the Obama administration from doing what would have sped up the recovery when they limited his fiscal policy options in the name of deficit control (remember the Republicans used to worry about deficits when Obama was President; under Trump...not so much).

[XU 87]

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it? Where in the Constitution does it say that? This is, by far, the most regressive administration I've seen in my lifetime.

It doesn't matter what year it is. The Constitution either says or it doesn't. If the Constitution doesn't address an issue, then that issue is left to the voters or their elected representatives to decide. That's the way our system of government is supposed to work. Because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, it should be decided by the voters, not by 5 judges.

Your argument above about "who has more rights" is not a Constitutionally based legal argument.