Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Bkite, Mar 15, 2017.
Where'd the money go.
Looks like someone's Mother flubbed the birds and bees talk.
So following that logic, we should also tax women masturbating as they are interfering with a man (somewhere) who needs to ejaculate and potentially father a child.
And then we'll need to tax wet dreams and women riding horses as well.
Her "logic" completely fails. A sperm is not a fertilized egg. Idiots abound in this world.
By that logic, women should pay a fine... about once a month!
Doesn't there need to BE an unborn child before someone masturbating can affect it?
Doesn't sound like any logic at all. That leaves Unreasonable Feminist Bloodlust, (in others words, just Angry Frying Pans).
You may note that is alot more sarcasm than anything else. Done in coordination with the ideas regarding limits and requirements for termination of a pregnancy.
Think about it from that point gents.
And a total waste of taxpayer dollars paying that poc legislator
Lets not get in to the good/bad/choice/life/me/us/person/fetus debate.
Defending your voters/party's positions or views by sarcastic comments or filings is not a bad method of operating in a legislature. Its all in the name of personal (live, standing, breathing, voting person) equality, regardless of physical organs aka treat all people equal.
Yes, because chopping up babies is a fundamental civil right. It's in the constitution.
Nemo, what in the world makes you think everybody reading but you failed to understand her stupid point?
Yes it is. SCOTUS said so. Roe v Wade. SCOTUS knows more than I do about that stuff. They may not know more than you do but your views and beliefs do not count in this situation. In the situation where you are on the bench they will. Until then, not so much.
Because of some of the responses above and complete objection to any consideration of any ideas regarding support of the other side in way, manner, or writing that I have read here.
Or it could be I an just not very good at understanding some of the sarcasm here.
Usurpation by 9 robed oligarchs does not change reality. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Not necessarily. I have faith in your ability to increase your knowledge base. You can read. Google text of the constitution and read it for yourself. Determine on your own whether abortion is mentioned at all.
Why do you bother responding to a person whose views and beliefs do not count? Anyway, this is not a view or a belief. I have read the constitution to see for myself rather than trusting that 9 robed oligarchs are being honest when they claim it is in there.
Roe v. Wade was a naked power grab. The majority of Justices in 1973 could not resist the temptation to exercise political power in a situation in which the constitution did not authorize them to do so.
IN THIS SITUATION <-- You forgot to quote that part but your views do not count in this situation. Perhaps I should have included interpretations, but in this situation they do not count either
I have read it also. Remember, Me-- Juris Doctor, Cum Laude. Burned out and retired a dozen years back. Keep in mind that ARs, Internet, Pepper Spray cans, cars, telephones (cell and landline) and lots of other things were not mentioned but SCOTUS has interpreted them to be included in the Constitution.
Or was it a view of the Constitution by highly learned and experienced judges giving that case due consideration.
Was Terry v Ohio a power grab? Could it have been if it went the other way?
Dred Scott v Sanford? Jones v. Van Zandt? They can easily be seen a power grabs. Keeping only the white people in power.
How about US v Miller. Keep guns away from civilians. Start at short barrel shotguns and go from there. Power grab to keep the govt in power. Give civilians only pitchforks and hoes to get rid of it if and when needed.
That argument is a bit thin methinks.
At least you see the problem. I am bothered by the fact that you can write this and are not only ok with it, but seem to think this is a good argument to support the principle of making rulings on constitutional issues that are not in the constitution. Disturbing.
This case at least was discussing an actual, real constitutional text!
I am surprised you even have to ask the question.
Have not read it, so I do not know, but I am not sure (going off memory) that this was a constitutional case as opposed to a statutory case, so I cannot answer your question.
It is obvious from your comment that you have never read US v. Miller. I will just say you are wrong about what it says and what it held. Having actually read it, I would answer your question in the negative. It was not a power grab of any sort.
Miller arose from a case in Arkansas where the federal judge dismissed a case of illegal possession of a short barreled shotgun based on a Second Amendment motion. The Supreme Court, on appeal, simply remanded for a determination, based on evidence, of whether a short barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."
No, not exactly a naked power grab. Again, this is a case discussing an actual constitutional provision. This constitutional provision exists.
It is obviously thicker than you have considered. I think you need to study it a little more carefully. It is hardly appropriate to point to another case and say, "Hey, look! They ignored the constitution in that case, too! Accordingly, it is proper to ignore the constitution whenever it is inconvenient for their political goals."
I guess it will have to say that our views of interpretations of the Constitution as well as our own abilities on that are different.
We will have to agree to disagree on which one of us always right and which is never wrong.
"From my cold dead hands" would be inappropriately appropriate here, methinks.