I like to explain when I lend out a "Come on man." The bolded was QUITE the reach and did not address the OP's point about the hundreds of thousands of kids currently in foster care.
It goes to the source of the problem. I know, she, you, and every other lib would prefer i ignore the source, and focus on the big gov sponsored solution, which of course, is more big gov. Thats how big gov does. Cause problems, then tell us we need more big gov to fix the problem they made. Roe was the source of the justification that young men, women, girls n boys' collective right to get laid, was greater than the inconvenient life that often results from exercise of the former right.
Kavanaugh flat out lied. Straight up liar. Gives some perspective on his truthfulness on the whole sexual assault cluster fork when he was 16, although it still isn’t really relevant.
If anybody ever earned the right to shit all over a representation along those lines, it would be Kav. Alas, he rides the spilt blood of 60+ million murdered souls for 60+ million times the justification anyone would need. C'est la vie.
why do they need 10+? Seems like an easy one for collins or murkowski? I’ll offer another reason. They have no desire to. It’s much more lucrative to raise money and much easier to spin people up to vote on the next election. They’ve had 50 years to cement this into law. Nobody to blame but themselves. Had a chance with 3755 and that turned into a disaster that nobody other than far leftist could support.
Because you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. What an absurdly ignorant response. It was cemented into law for 50 years. You don't use a federal statute to "codify" a constitutional right. Constitutional rights trump federal statutes. And anybody who thinks the Republicans who overturned a constitutional right couldn't also strike down a federal statute protecting that right knows nothing about the law.
I agree with what you're saying, but replace "discriminate," with "analyze." Human brains are geared for analyzing and prioritizing threats, and one of the criteria is race. Another is sex, height, weight, musculature, etc. Threat assessment, at it's most basic level. How one acts upon those perceptions determines if one is a racist.
my point was it was long believed the RvW was not on sound ground and yes they absolutely could have codified with a new statute. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/
Which would have done less than nothing. This case would have overturned both Roe v. Wade and struck down the statute in that scenario. It's silly to try to even argue that would have been a solution to the problem.
But so? How is it that apparently only Susan Collins believed that shiznit? Trump screeched incessantly that he’d only deliver Roe killers. I realize he is has a pathological need to lie, but it isn’t 100%. One of BK’s former clerks also told us. And he himself revealed the “not rooted in history” theme (taken from Rehnquist) in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute a year before being named. Surely no one on these boards had BK as an individual rights guy, since that would be idiotic. Even Susan Collins is also not an idiot. She’s a liar, and a Republican. When people tell you scary things, believe them.
I've been told it's the dems' turnout fault. That malignant perspective reminds me of the tripe argument that if a black person works hard, he/she can overcome systemic racism. He/she should not have to work harder than their fellow citizens to succeed. The majority of citizens shouldn't have to be a "super majority" to have their views represented. We are broken.
Indeed. Let’s make this about racism. Can we get any more predictable? I think I am going to change my sig to “Beware the malignant perspective”.
Hold on, the court does not make laws. How can the "court" cement any law? What legal argument did the 3 dissenting justices make to keep Roe v Wade.?
