Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on January 24, 2005, 01:51:20 PM
-
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?
-
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
-
Funny that I didn't meet anyone opposing abortion there during my recent visit. Where are they all at?
-
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.
-
Right you are weasel. Usually it takes 12 people to decide if someone is guilty of muder, not 5.
-
Originally posted by loser
Right you are weasel. Usually it takes 12 people to decide if someone is guilty of muder, not 5.
??????
-
sorry i mispelled "murder."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL Rotsa ruck
redriock
yi yidden now yat you spokey yapaneese too.
(bow)
-
there are seven justices of the supreme court arent there?
five?
-
Originally posted by JB88
there are seven justices of the supreme court arent there?
five?
Please tell me you're not American. Please.
-
Originally posted by mora
Funny that I didn't meet anyone opposing abortion there during my recent visit. Where are they all at?
Where did you visit?
-
i was being a wisenhiemer.
-
Originally posted by 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
Good...we'll put conservatives on the court and legislate. I'll keep the fact that you think it's a good thing in mind.
especially if the democrats in the Future ever win both houses of Congress and the Presidency...we'll simply challenge all legislation at the Supreme Court level and declare it Unconstitutional.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Please tell me you're not American. Please.
No there are nine on the court...five for a majority decision.
Sorry tarmac I grabbed the wrong Quote.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Good...we'll put conservatives on the court and legislate. I'll keep the fact that you think it's a good thing in mind.
especially if the democrats in the Future ever win both houses of Congress and the Presidency...we'll simply challenge all legislation at the Supreme Court level and declare it Unconstitutional.
So all judges in Supreme court of USA are actully apointed because of their political views?
(just s curious question from an, in this matter, not so well informed swede, no bashing, promise)
-
Originally posted by patrone
So all judges in Supreme court of USA are actully apointed because of their political views?
(just s curious question from an, in this matter, not so well informed swede, no bashing, promise)
More or less that is correct. While the final power is in the hands of the people (Constitutional ammendments) the Justices are nominated by the president and approved by a Senate vote. However the Supreme Court has been used in modern times as an arm of a political party. Roosevelt wanted to increase the court by four extra Justices so he could pack it with people sympathetic to his views ( He lost that one). More recently there seems to be a litmus test. The Democrats will block any nomination if any Justice is deemed to be "pro-life". Bork was an example. He wasn't actually pro life as much as he was pro Constitution. In other words he felt the Supreme Court was to follow the dictates of the Constitution as it was intended and not legislate from the bench. This is unacceptable to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Unable to win elections they need to use the Courts to legislate there agenda over the people. This is one of the main reasons for the vitrolic hatred that you see for George Bush. He will nominate two or three Justices in his second term. Four more senate seats will give the Republicans a fillabuster proof Senate. Then you would see panic by the left
wing.
A fillabuster is when a Senator takes the floor of the Senate and speaks until the time limit for a vote has expired. In other words it blocks a vote from being taken by the full senate. The Democrats have been using this to block GB nominees to all Courts.
-
No, the supreme court is only supposed to rule on whether or not items are uncostitutional.
But they go out of there way to say things that are constitutional. That's called legislating.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Of course he's going to support them. He needs the goose stepping Christian right for support.
ack-ack
An example of the vitrolic hatred I mentioned earlier...notice the word Goose stepping to denote Nazis...actually goose stepping Nazis means we lost the election.
-
mora... you came here and asked people how they felt about abortion? They all said that it was a great thing and that it should be done at every chance?
lazs
-
Originally posted by 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
Judicial activism is not Constitutional.....remember the will of the people part?
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Of course he's going to support them. He needs the goose stepping Christian right for support.
ack-ack
Ahhh.....the truth rears it's ugly head