A 'thing'? *It* is a human being. A specimen of homo sapiens in a tender and vulnerable state of BE-ing.
I couldn't see the post you replied to. Thought it was a stand alone post. ...but still not much of a 'correction'. Seems like you agreed with the quoted post that also cslled him 'uncle Thomas'.
Correct. Although, the equal protection sex discrimination arguments were in their infancy at that time. The author of Roe, Harry Blackmun, later embraced the Equal Protection Clause as protecting reproductive rights.
There is this though: Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states, although 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]
By shutting down any discussion about the issue and thereby removing it from the public forum. (...and most egregiously, by fabricating the grounds for doing so).
This seems a silly, thread pulling position. Trump left the White house of his own accord. He didn't have to get physically removed by the police. Did he want to go? Apparently not, but to say that he refused to transfer power is just ignoring the facts as they exist...he left and he didn't have to be forcibly made to do so.
Well you left the “peaceful” part out. Because he screeched for 90 minutes about the End of Days before the insurrection if the mob he assembled didn’t fight and the VP didn’t own the steal. He exhausted every illegal option that was even a hint better than simply absurd. DOJ, AG, VP, GOP Congress, willing cannon fodder citizens, all the RW media, social media, every Qnut, and he still does all those things still available to him today. You make it sound like him not demanding a movie plot coup with a military component washes away all the sedition.
The basis of the referendum was to allow the restoration of voting rights to felons "who have completed their sentences." If they haven't completed their sentences, then they shouldn't be eligible to have their rights restored....simple as that, and also upheld by the courts. In what way is the will of the ppl being ignored here?
No, @Trickster just conflated a simple fact of me stating that he did "transfer" power to all kind of other things. He stated he didn't transfer power, when it is simple fact that in the end Biden was sworn in on time like every other President and Trump walked out of the White House under his own power. Whether he wanted to do all those things or not is immaterial.
In the way that you have added to the definition of “sentence” just like scum R’s did to stop it. You are going to straight face that “sentence” stance? “Say, bro, what type of sentence did you get for that speeding ticket?”