Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The decision of a Supreme Court nomination should never weigh this heavily on the lives of Americans. The founders would be appalled at the tremendous centralization of power and decision making that occurs in SCOTUS. The remedy is amendments that limit SCOTUS terms;and granting both to Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of 3/5 of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

Most likely this will not happen through the traditional amendment proposals via Congress route . It will require an Article 5 convention. And while we are at it there should be an amendment that allows state legislatures to propose amendments if proposed by 2/3 of the legislatures .(We can add in term limits for Congress too.)

---

Term limits YES for SCOTUS! I can see a lot of conflicts when we get to the rest of your fixes. I thought states could already propose amendment through a constitutional convention.

https://www.wikihow.com/Amend-the-Constitution

Quote:

---

For an amendment to be proposed via a constitutional convention, two-thirds of the state legislatures must call for it. That convention proposes the amendment which is then sent to the states to be approved, and approval must be granted by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions among the states.

^[4]

---

yeah but I don't want to have a convention after the one necessary to get these changes. My way would propose amendments by the states without going the convention route. I want one now ;but I clearly see the risk of a potential runaway convention. That's really what happened the first time. All they were supposed to do is amend the Articles of Confederation .By the time they were done they createe a new government . I don't think it's likely ,but would prefer to have state legislatures still have the power to propose amendments without the need for a convention. You think the ones I suggested would be problems ? I did not evenmention states veto of laws Congress passes ;or balanced budget amendments . I really wanted to stick to the issue of rebalancing the government into 3 equal branches. So we'll have to wait for another discussion to repeal the 17th amendment ,or a constitutional requirement to sunset regulations subject to reauthorization . Or creating limits of government powers pertaining to the Commerce Clause.

Tom you are surely not saying the Constitution is flawed?

Repeal the 17th amendment? Put the senate in the hands of state party bosses and not in the hands of the people?

The Senate will get the results of the FBI investigation TONIGHT! Is the fix in by the white house?

Quote:

---

I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester.

---

Why are you against late term abortions?
When you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?

It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing. Where you draw that line has always been a subject of great debate, as has assisting a human to die, or life giving procedures being withheld so one can die. For some the jury is out, for some it's not. Not unlike our topic, as there are just many varying opinions on this nomination and the process. I think we can agree on outcomes, but I have a real problem with how we arrive at those outcomes and if you want less abortions then information and the tools that make them unnecessry should be readily available. Closing down Planned Parenthood and the MANY services they provide to stop abortions is a bridge to far for me.

On the current subject senators are viewing the FBI report under a very strict process, with debate to follow. Then the voting starts. It's almost over.

Again, when you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?

Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

---

Hello again, j:

I'm not real smart.. What I love about the Constitution, is it was written for dummies like me. I frankly don't know HOW to interpret the words in the Constitution OTHER than what they actually MEAN in the English language.. So, while I don't know about activist liberal justices, I DO know how to speak the kings English..

Having said that, the 14th Amendment is clear.. 1) It says that if some citizens have a particular right, then ALL of the citizens have that right.. 2) There ARE rights that come along with marriage. Ergo, pursuant to the 14th, if SOME citizens have those rights, then ALL the citizens have those rights. 3) They also decided that the right to marry means you may marry the one you love - not the one the state requires you to marry..

I wonder.. If certain words have to be in the Constitution before laws can be made about them, I can't find the word "murder".. Given your argument, murder MUST be Constitutional..

excon

Here's a word for you this morning JL... SMEAR. Is it a smear against someone if it's TRUE? How would you know?

Quote:

---

Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?

---

Why are you hesitant to answer the question? You are the one who brought up the twin subjects of abortion and gay marriage.

Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.

You may not like my opinion, and that's okay with me.

Can we get back to the repub sham investigation, or you answer my question on smears?

lol sham investigation . The parameters of the investigation were exactly what the Democrats asked for before they started moving the goal posts . But turn out the lights Your smear job did not work .

So now Kavanaugh can join Ray Donovan in asking ;“Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”

I call it a sham Tom because everything the dufus has ever done has been a self serving con job to get fame, fortune, power, and all that good stuff he thinks he is entitled to. Why do you think this would be any different than all the other things he has done in his life?

His daddy taught him well.

Quote:

---

Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.

---

It's a very simple question that you are plainly afraid to answer. You gave this less than clear statement on abortion ("It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing"), and now you don't want to say if abortions after three months should, or should not, be legal. I find this in many liberals. "I'm OK with abortion because I don't think the law should intrude on a woman's right to control her own body. However, I also believe the unborn "organism" becomes genuinely human at some point, and in that case abortion becomes unacceptable, but it'll be a cold day in hades before I do anything to protect that human life with the law. So I'm in favor of abortion unless, of course, I'm not." What a strange logic.

Cold day in Hades sums it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It's a very simple question that you are plainly afraid to answer. You gave this less than clear statement on abortion ("It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing"), and now you don't want to say if abortions after three months should, or should not, be legal. I find this in many liberals. "I'm OK with abortion because I don't think the law should intrude on a woman's right to control her own body. However, I also believe the unborn "organism" becomes genuinely human at some point, and in that case abortion becomes unacceptable, but it'll be a cold day in hades before I do anything to protect that human life with the law. So I'm in favor of abortion unless, of course, I'm not." What a strange logic.

---

Only the small narrow mind can not see the nuances and depths of ones different views from their own even though I have spent many posts explaining that complexity. That's fine that you don't agree or understand as most holier than thou bible thumpers don't, as for them its so simple as liberals bad, conservatives good. No in between can be contemplated so no compromise can be gained.

Naw, I'm not ready to make illegal those who might stretch my tolerances, or criminalize them for the narrow view. You just keep it simple for yourself while I explore the possibilities. Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you, so if you don't mind if I don't just jump on your bandwagon and ride head long into your ideology or anything else, maybe the next time you holler your murdering babies you will also step up and raise those babies you say your saving.

Until then you're as dead beat as the natural father who walks away from that responsibility. Since you can hold your nose at the lying cheating dufus con man and his band of sycophants then you just keep holding that nose as I go about my own business in my own way. My responses might not be good enough for you, but that's not my problem.

We both know how our debates end... they never do! Probably never will. Let me know when your ready for the gay marriage thing.

Quote:

---

It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing.

---

OK. So actually it's really not too late to turn back. Just wanted to know your view on the matter. At least you are honest enough to say it's alright to abort (kill) an unborn child at any point of the pregnancy, including the day prior to the day the child would be born. I'm not ready to sacrifice that child's life on the altar of political correctness.

Quote:

---

Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you.

---

Wow you can be sensitive. I haven't dismissed you at all. I just wanted you to clarify your position on legalizing abortion, which you have done. I don't understand it. I would suggest you watch a video of an abortion at 3 months and then come back and tell us about it.

LOL, you quoted my words and still twist them. Was that to be provocative or are you really clueless?