time to stir the pot?

[JB73]

noone has commented on this yet:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20050124/ap_on_re_us/abortion_protest

President Bush told abortion foes on Monday he shared their support for "a culture of life" and claimed progress in passing legislation to protect the vulnerable.

if you pay attention you know my stance on this.



oh yeah, dont be mean to each other and get the thread locked ok?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by JB73
noone has commented on this yet:

oh yeah, dont be mean to each other and get the thread locked ok?

LOL Rotsa ruck

[mora]

Funny that I didn't meet anyone opposing abortion there during my recent visit. Where are they all at?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by mora
Funny that I didn't meet anyone opposing abortion there during my recent visit. Where are they all at?

Look it's very simple, most of you furners don't understand the system of government used in the U.S. It's a little messy ,but has worked just fine for over 200 years. Laws are passed by Congress The peoples representatives (elected) passed again in the Senate 2 per State, (elected) and then signed by the president. (elected) It is now law. The same goes for each State but on a smaller scale. Thus you have a Government of the people. The Left wing in this Country found a way around Government by the people. If laws are passed that they don't like they would use a left leaning Supreme Court or left leaning lower courts to rule the Law unconstitutional. A Texas Law outlawing Abortion was simply ruled unconstitutional...the ruling was so flawed and outrages that the opinion included wording such as "the constitution Eminates a right to abortion" That would mean that any Justice can have anything "eminate" or give them "Vibes". Maybe one day it may again eminate "separate but equal is constitutional" and we would return to Jim Crow. My point is simply abortion should be decided by the people of the States. Not by a dictatorship of five Justices.

[loser]

Right you are weasel. Usually it takes 12 people to decide if someone is guilty of muder, not 5.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by loser
Right you are weasel. Usually it takes 12 people to decide if someone is guilty of muder, not 5.

 ??????

[loser]

sorry i mispelled "murder."

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by loser
sorry i mispelled "murder."

Not the mispelling...don't quite understand what you mean. Supreme court Justices aren't jurys. The are non elected "appointed for life" justices that make rulings based on the Constitution.

[loser]

Oh okay...I'll explain then. Doesnt matter (at least to me) if there are a few people..say 5, that decide whether or not something is okay or at least legal.

While I'm fine with many if not most issues being decided by "the powers that be," some things cant be justified or prohibited by a group of individuals elected or appointed.

The legallity of ending life (or allowing life to continue as nature would have it) is just one of those issues.

We arent talking about posted speed limits here, or the right to bear arms, or any other thing that pales in comparison to the question of a human life.

My point was that, at least to me, some things cant be decided by a person or group of people. Some things are just wrong.

Fair enough?

[lasersailor184]

No, the problem with these justices are that they are legislating.  They are stepping out of the bounds set before them and no one yet has had the balls to tell them to shut the **** up.

[Ack-Ack]

There is nothing wrong with judicial activism, especially at the Supreme Court level.  It is a very important part of the checks and balance system.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by JB73
noone has commented on this yet:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20050124/ap_on_re_us/abortion_protest



if you pay attention you know my stance on this.



oh yeah, dont be mean to each other and get the thread locked ok?

Of course he's going to support them.  He needs the goose stepping Christian right for support.


ack-ack

[JB88]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL Rotsa ruck

redriock

yi yidden now yat you spokey yapaneese too.

(bow)

[JB88]

there are seven justices of the supreme court arent there?

five?

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by JB88
there are seven justices of the supreme court arent there?

five?

Please tell me you're not American.  Please.