Quote:

---

Well John Roberts like many Republican nominees in the past has proven that he lied in the hearings and is not an impartial 'referee ' .Since he is no longer the swing vote ;he has decided to go all in with the activists on the court .

---

I'm afraid that is about right.

Cry me a river since it's 5-4 to the right regardless if we follow ideology which keeps SCOTUS as the partisan joke that it is, and has been. I wish Joe would expand the courts just to watch the heads explode on the right. I doubt he does.

That court is only a joke because you think it is politically motivated but for years it was politically motivated and very partisan, but it hasn't found in favour of Trump. The court doesn't make laws it adjudicates on matters referred to it and strikes down laws that are unconstitutional and politically motivated.. what you advocate is a politically motivated court

We're just lucky the dufus lawyers are so incompetent that even judges appointed by the dufus laughed them out of court.

The jokes on HIM! Can't wait until the fool pardons himself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Can't wait until the fool pardons himself!

---

no doubt that would be referred to the court

Quote:

---

. I wish Joe would expand the courts just to watch the heads explode on the right. I doubt he does.

---

Well for one thing ,he has no authority to do so. Congress decides the size of the court and even if there are any lower courts at all .The constitution only mandates a SCOTUS ...... Article 3 sec 1 (The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish )

Quote:

---

That court is only a joke because you think it is politically motivated but for years it was politically motivated and very partisan,

---

That is because the claim that the court being politicized is correct since the early days of the John Marshall court.

Quote:

---

The court doesn't make laws it adjudicates on matters referred to it and strikes down laws that are unconstitutional and politically motivated..

---

It has effectively made law out of whole cloth more times than I can mention. It has also created rights based on some bizzarro reading of the constitution. example :this is Justice Douglas in Griswold v Connecticut "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. "

That turn of phrase was the basis for creating the so called right to privacy which in turn morphed into the right to whack babies .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That turn of phrase was the basis for creating the so called right to privacy which in turn morphed into the right to whack babies .

---

So you are saying a supreme court judge actually said you have the right to whack babies? how much baby whacking goes on over there? obviously too much because the level of brain damage is extraordinary

see definition 3

Definition of whack

1a: to strike with a smart or resounding blowwhack the ball
b: to cut with or as if with a whack : chop

2chiefly British : to get the better of :defeat

3slang : MURDER KILL

Quote:

---

So you are saying a supreme court judge actually said you have the right to whack babies? how much baby whacking goes on over there? obviously too much because the level of brain damage is extraordinary

---

It is hardly a topic to make light of.

Maybe you righties need more facts as this is what Griswold v Conn. was about, and this is what Justice Douglas wrote.

Quote:

---

"Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship."

---

Yes this right to privacy and practice of birth control by married couples which did expand to all women. Not much different than the rights of white men expanded to the rest of Americans.

I have no right to kill a baby .

No one does by law. Are you against the abortion pill too? Does that mean you also would outlaw the legal abortion procedure at or before 12 weeks in a doctors office?

When is a fetus/zygote/fertilized egg considered a baby? How the heck did we get on this abortion stuff again?

Toms quote about penumbras is actually from Roe/Wade, not from Griswald.

The real question is when are we dealing with a human life. The answer is pretty simple.

God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Man did not have a soul but he became a soul, and the life-principle was the breath (Hebrew ruah: spirit) of God. As a result, we say when man no longer has breath that he is dead.

I'm not interested in rehashing abortion either . My point was that Justice Douglas created new rights and law out of whole cloth. His language states that rights are implied deep in the hidden meaning of the written words and intents of the authors These rights should be recognized, according to their liking, their interpretation, their personal preferences in order to "fix" some issue with a predetermined desired outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Man did not have a soul but he became a soul, and the life-principle was the breath (Hebrew ruah: spirit) of God. As a result, we say when man no longer has breath that he is dead.

---

What do the Christian anti-abortionists say about this verse from the Bible?

Quote:

---

What do the Christian anti-abortionists say about this verse from the Bible?

---

Please, please tell me that you are not trying to make the utterly absurd assertion that babies in the womb are not alive since they are not breathing air. The text you quoted simply says that life originated with God, and was conveyed to man by God breathing into his nostrils, not the breath of air, but the breath of life, and as a result he became a living creature. This of course is said of the first man, being one who spent no time in the womb.

That is what the "Christian anti-abortionist" says about that verse. What does the non-Christian, pro-abortionist say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm not interested in rehashing abortion either . My point was that Justice Douglas created new rights and law out of whole cloth. His language states that rights are implied deep in the hidden meaning of the written words and intents of the authors These rights should be recognized, according to their liking, their interpretation, their personal preferences in order to "fix" some issue with a predetermined desired outcome

---

I think its more expanding on the basics in order to stay relevant with evolving humans, in order to form a more perfect union which has to be an ongoing process. I think Douglas recognizes this process as inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It is hardly a topic to make light of.

---

I was not making light of it. Few of my observations are intended to make light of a serious situation and not wishing to associate baby whacking with the abortion debate, what level of child discipline is the norm in a self obcessed society