So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[93henfan]

If you want to take birth control, that's your choice.
If you want to have cosmetic surgery, that's your choice.
If you want to get a face tattoo, that's your choice.
If you want to take drugs, that's your choice.
The second you take the life of another... we have a problem.

Whenever 89 gets into an abortion thread, this song starts playing in my head!

phpBB [video]

[Ibanez]

If you want to take birth control, that's your choice.
If you want to have cosmetic surgery, that's your choice.
If you want to get a face tattoo, that's your choice.
If you want to take drugs, that's your choice.
The second you take the life of another... we have a problem.

What if you have to take a life to save one? Is that not also a choice?

[SeattleGriz]

Why are people using abortion as birth control as opposed to simply taking actual birth control?

[SuperHornet]

Why are people using abortion as birth control as opposed to simply taking actual birth control?

Good question....

[SuperHornet]

The article on this I saw this morning indicated that this decision was something of a surprise, as no action on Roe v. Wade was expected until a MS case comes up c. next June....

[89Hen]

If you want to take birth control, that's your choice.
If you want to have cosmetic surgery, that's your choice.
If you want to get a face tattoo, that's your choice.
If you want to take drugs, that's your choice.
The second you take the life of another... we have a problem.

What if you have to take a life to save one? Is that not also a choice?

We can have that rare circumstance discussion, but it's amazing how quickly somebody defending pro-choice ends up at:

- What about when the mother's life is in danger
- What about incest or rape

Let's stick to the 99% of abortions before we address the 1%.

[BDKJMU]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

[Ibanez]

What if you have to take a life to save one? Is that not also a choice?

We can have that rare circumstance discussion, but it's amazing how quickly somebody defending pro-choice ends up at:

- What about when the mother's life is in danger
- What about incest or rape

Let's stick to the 99% of abortions before we address the 1%.

I get your point...but for me that 1% is why I support keeping it legal. I guess I am defending pro-choice but not because I think there shouldn't be accountability but because there are situations that people find themselves in and who am I to take away their choice.


Again - I realize it makes me a hypocrite.

[Ivytalk]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

So why don’t you start impeachment proceedings?

[∞∞∞]

More of a reason to remove the legislative filibuster. It's time.

Senate was never meant for the 60 vote bullsh*t, and US shouldn't be ruled by a minority mob. Time to codify abortion rights into federal law because it's clear conservative states can't protect people or their individual liberties (especially minority groups).

[89Hen]

We can have that rare circumstance discussion, but it's amazing how quickly somebody defending pro-choice ends up at:

- What about when the mother's life is in danger
- What about incest or rape

Let's stick to the 99% of abortions before we address the 1%.

I get your point...but for me that 1% is why I support keeping it legal. I guess I am defending pro-choice but not because I think there shouldn't be accountability but because there are situations that people find themselves in and who am I to take away their choice.


Again - I realize it makes me a hypocrite.

But we can address those 1% of cases (or whatever the number is) with common sense. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. I'm OK with a life or death situation, making a choice. As for incest or rape, that requires a police action. Meaning, you can't just claim incest or rape at the doctors office to try and use it as a loophole.

And I'm not necessarily for punishing women if abortion was made illegal. I'm more for punishing the doctors.

[Ibanez]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

You complain but that is the way it's supposed to work. Judges making decisions based on law and NOT political ideology.

[Ibanez]

I get your point...but for me that 1% is why I support keeping it legal. I guess I am defending pro-choice but not because I think there shouldn't be accountability but because there are situations that people find themselves in and who am I to take away their choice.


Again - I realize it makes me a hypocrite.

But we can address those 1% of cases (or whatever the number is) with common sense. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. I'm OK with a life or death situation, making a choice. As for incest or rape, that requires a police action. Meaning, you can't just claim incest or rape at the doctors office to try and use it as a loophole.

And I'm not necessarily for punishing women if abortion was made illegal. I'm more for punishing the doctors.

Fair enough.

[∞∞∞]

Btw if you know a woman (or teen) who needs access to an abortion in Texas - or anywhere really - let them know about AidAccess.org. It's a global non-profit health organization which provides free online consultations with certified American doctors, and can provide medical abortion by mail via abortion pills.

[SuperHornet]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

So why don’t you start impeachment proceedings?

I was wondering if SCOTUS is liable to impeachment...and it seems that it is...but the Congress is not. The Constitution mentions POTUS, VPOTUS, and other "civil officers of the United States" without defining who those civil officers are. Congress has taken the stance that Reps and Senators are NOT among those "civil officers," but have a much less tedious method of expulsion that don't involve reference to the other chamber, though it rarely happens; nominated executive branch people ARE "civil officers," though. (The idea that Legislators are not "civil officers" stems from the House impeachment of Sen. William Blount (D/R-TN) for a land speculation conspiracy in 1797; the Senate expelled him on the same day; the impeachment was still on the books four days later because expulsion didn't prevent re-election while impeachment did. The Senate then issued the denial that Legislators were "civil officers," and the House hasn't attempted a Congressional impeachment since. Impeachment on the SCOTUS hasn't even been contemplated, apparently, since 1970 (Associate Justice William O. Douglas, the longest-termed member of SCOTUS ever, subject of TWO impeachment attempts: a stalled attempt in 1953 by a GA Rep infuriated over Douglas' stay of execution of a spy couple, and a more serious stalled attempt by future POTUS Ford for no clear reason other than opposition to Douglas' perceived liberal views, particularly in the area of vulgarity). The idea of continuing an impeachment after a term of office ends is also not included in the Constitution, but the House has shown in both the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William W. Belknap and the 2021 impeachment of President Donald Trump that it is willing to pursue post-term impeachments.

But as far as impeaching Chief Justice Roberts because he voted with liberal associates goes: That sounds to me as if it's as much a non-starter as the Douglas impeachment was. Ford was ticked that Douglas was liberal, and tried to push the impeachment on that basis, and it got no traction because the House Judiciary Committee found no legitimate wrong-doing. The same is likely true in the case of Roberts. Not behaving as expected isn't really an impeachable offense for SCOTUS. If we were going to go there, we'd also have to impeach every Trump appointee, including Amy Coney Barrett, because they've sided with liberals on occasion. That's a dumb idea, IMO. Making mistakes (from a political philosophical perspective) isn't anywhere near the same thing as outright corruption....

[Ibanez]

So why don’t you start impeachment proceedings?

I was wondering if SCOTUS is liable to impeachment...and it seems that it is...but the Congress is not. The Constitution mentions POTUS, VPOTUS, and other "civil officers of the United States" without defining who those civil officers are. Congress has taken the stance that Reps and Senators are NOT among those "civil officers," but have a much less tedious method of expulsion that don't involve reference to the other chamber, though it rarely happens; nominated executive branch people ARE "civil officers," though. (The idea that Legislators are not "civil officers" stems from the House impeachment of Sen. William Blount (D/R-TN) for a land speculation conspiracy in 1797; the Senate expelled him on the same day; the impeachment was still on the books four days later because expulsion didn't prevent re-election while impeachment did. The Senate then issued the denial that Legislators were "civil officers," and the House hasn't attempted a Congressional impeachment since. Impeachment on the SCOTUS hasn't even been contemplated, apparently, since 1970 (Associate Justice William O. Douglas, the longest-termed member of SCOTUS ever, subject of TWO impeachment attempts: a stalled attempt in 1953 by a GA Rep infuriated over Douglas' stay of execution of a spy couple, and a more serious stalled attempt by future POTUS Ford for no clear reason other than opposition to Douglas' perceived liberal views, particularly in the area of vulgarity). The idea of continuing an impeachment after a term of office ends is also not included in the Constitution, but the House has shown in both the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William W. Belknap and the 2021 impeachment of President Donald Trump that it is willing to pursue post-term impeachments.

But as far as impeaching Chief Justice Roberts because he voted with liberal associates goes: That sounds to me as if it's as much a non-starter as the Douglas impeachment was. Ford was ticked that Douglas was liberal, and tried to push the impeachment on that basis, and it got no traction because the House Judiciary Committee found no legitimate wrong-doing. The same is likely true in the case of Roberts. Not behaving as expected isn't really an impeachable offense for SCOTUS. If we were going to go there, we'd also have to impeach every Trump appointee, including Amy Coney Barrett, because they've sided with liberals on occasion. That's a dumb idea, IMO. Making mistakes (from a political philosophical perspective) isn't anywhere near the same thing as outright corruption....

You're that word that Ivytalk used earlier and I've now forgotten.

[Ibanez]

I genuinely want to know what the board conservative think about the fact that in Texas they want you to snitch on your fellow citizens. I mean...that's not a conservative or Republican principle.

Btw - it's ironic that a group that got so upset over whistleblowers a few years ago would use that in their web address. lol


https://prolifewhistleblower.com/ Go here to tattle on someone who most likely feels awful for making a difficult decision.

Btw - what's the over/under until that site is brought down by hacktivists? I give it a week.

[Ivytalk]

SuperHornet, didn’t you catch the eye roll emoji? I didn’t mean for you to go all JSO on us about impeachment of justices.

[UNI88]

More of a reason to remove the legislative filibuster. It's time.

Senate was never meant for the 60 vote bullsh*t, and US shouldn't be ruled by a minority mob. Time to codify abortion rights into federal law because it's clear conservative states can't protect people or their individual liberties (especially minority groups).

In the early years of the United States, John Adams and James Madison both recognized the danger of a potential tyranny of the majority and took action to prevent it from happening. In Adams' 1788 work A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he wrote that a government ruled by a unicameral elected body would be dangerous, and he argued instead for a mixed government with three separate branches. In the Federalist Papers, Madison discussed how an overbearing majority faction could take control of the government.

In Europe, influential thinkers like French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville and British philosopher John Stuart Mill also promoted the dangers of a tyranny of the majority.
...
To limit the possibility of a tyranny of the majority in the United States, the framers of the Constitution established a government with checks and balances designed, they claimed, to prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. Additionally, they made it more difficult for Congress to easily ignore the needs of minority groups by requiring the support of a supermajority for major decisions.

Tyranny of the Majority Explained

[∞∞∞]

Key point: protect the needs of the minority.

Not let the minority rule. Two separate things.

You know what else they didn't do when they created the country? This 60 vote filibuster. Needing two separate chambers get to 50%+1 and Presidential veto powers is the legislative check.

Democrats are so spineless.

[UNI88]

Key point: protect the needs of the minority.

Not let the minority rule. Two separate things.

The "needs" of the minority should be defined by the minority. The majority defining the "needs" of the minority is condescending & imperialistic.

Further, the minority is not ruling. They are providing opposition as intended. It is up to the majority to work with the minority when needed to pass their legislation. That means compromise. It does not mean ignoring and steamrolling the minority because their "needs" are not a priority to the majority.

And if the Republicans take Congress and the White House in 2024 you'll be thankful if the Democrats were spineless because they could just as easily shove their agenda down the throats of the minority.

[BDKJMU]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

You complain but that is the way it's supposed to work. Judges making decisions based on law and NOT political ideology.

How do you know he was making it on law, and not polktical ideology?

[BDKJMU]

Yet another case of Roberts voting with the 3 libs..

So why don’t you start impeachment proceedings?

Why don’t you start impeachment proceedings on the wise Latina?

[BDKJMU]

Key point: protect the needs of the minority.

Not let the minority rule. Two separate things.

You know what else they didn't do when they created the country? This 60 vote filibuster. Needing two separate chambers get to 50%+1 and Presidential veto powers is the legislative check.

Democrats are so spineless.

Yet when the donks were using the fillibuster to block a conk
POTUS and Senate (03’-06’ under Bush and all 4 yrs Trump) you were fine with it.

[Baldy]

More of a reason to remove the legislative filibuster. It's time.

Senate was never meant for the 60 vote bullsh*t, and US shouldn't be ruled by a minority mob. Time to codify abortion rights into federal law because it's clear conservative states can't protect people or their individual liberties (especially minority groups).

I did a quick search and didn't see you complain once in 2020 when the Donks used the filibuster 327 times to block Conk legislation.