Lawfare: US v. Trump, Trump wins!
- Thread starter Gallipoli
- Start date
No form of contraception is 100% effective. Not all pregnancies can be carried to term. Not all pregnancies are 100% safe for the mother. Not all pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.
One can easily be responsible yet have the need for a safe abortion.
And a woman's reproductive choices should be between her and her doctor. No need for the government to be involved.
One can easily be responsible yet have the need for a safe abortion.
And a woman's reproductive choices should be between her and her doctor. No need for the government to be involved.
Yeah but that wouldn't follow the Republican mantra of "government shouldn't tell you what to do in your personal life, except for things we decide we like."
Abortion is an important issue that should be left to the states. It should not be decided by unelected Judges. The citizens in California are different than those in West Virginia or Texas. There is no reason to force one rule for the entire nation. Let the people in each state decide.
You could, of course, make the same statement about literally any topic for which there is a federal law.
"Let the old evangelical Christian white men in each state decide." Fixed that for you.
We would still live in an apartheid nation if decisions on slavery, civil rights and voting rights had been left up to the states. Some rights must be Federally guaranteed because some states simply won't do it.
A woman in Alabama has just as much right to make her own reproductive decisions as a woman in California. Except Alabama won't let her.
I suggest you read the Tenth Amendment.
Here is the rejoinder to your comment.
"The special counsels appointed in recent years, from John Durham and David C. Weiss to Patrick Fitzgerald and Robert Hur, didn’t have Mr. Smith’s problem because they were U.S. attorneys who had already gone through the nomination and confirmation process. As for Robert Mueller, who also wasn’t a U.S. attorney when he was named special counsel to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia basically passed on delving into a challenge to his status....
Recently Judge Cannon received some powerful support. In his concurrence in the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas weighed in on Mr. Smith appointment: “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.”
Democrats overstepped their bounds. They wrecked their case by picking the wrong guy, in the wrong way. Follow the constitution, not your whims.
"You could say Mr. Smith embodies the overreach that has come to characterize Democratic politics in recent years. The Electoral College elects George W. Bush even though Al Gore won the popular vote? Abolish the Electoral College. The Senate filibuster is inhibiting Barack Obama’s judicial appointments? Get rid of it—and then watch Mitch McConnell use the new system to fill the bench with Trump nominees. Now an overly aggressive special counsel not only has had his case dismissed but has brought his own appointment into question.
Certainly having the charges in the strongest criminal case against Donald Trump dismissed is a stunning win for the former president. But if Judge Cannon and Justice Thomas are right—and we’ll know they are by the amount of abuse heaped on them—it’s a bigger victory for the Constitution, the American people and all future presidents.
"You could say Mr. Smith embodies the overreach that has come to characterize Democratic politics in recent years. The Electoral College elects George W. Bush even though Al Gore won the popular vote? Abolish the Electoral College. The Senate filibuster is inhibiting Barack Obama’s judicial appointments? Get rid of it—and then watch Mitch McConnell use the new system to fill the bench with Trump nominees. Now an overly aggressive special counsel not only has had his case dismissed but has brought his own appointment into question.
Certainly having the charges in the strongest criminal case against Donald Trump dismissed is a stunning win for the former president. But if Judge Cannon and Justice Thomas are right—and we’ll know they are by the amount of abuse heaped on them—it’s a bigger victory for the Constitution, the American people and all future presidents.
Agree with much of what you say. Chose words carefully in my post to which you appear to be responding:
"Focusing on reproductive responsibility rather than reproductive rights would largely disappear this issue."
You point out some exceptions with which I agree.
Problem on the issue is the "absolutes" on both ends of the spectrum - Never permissible bc it is a human life from conception to it is a woman's absolute right to abort a baby up to being delivered in the birth canal.
Under Roe, USA was an outlier in the World. Most countries allow abortion, if at all, up to on average 15 weeks. We were waaay outside the norm based on a made up right never addressed by our Constitution.
Fifteen weeks recognizes the fetus is not viable outside the womb. Gives the woman an opportunity to avoid an unwanted pregnancy regardless of cause. If development is allowed to the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb, and there are no fetal abnormalities or threat to the woman's life, we are bordering on murder.
Sensible ground and good policy lie between the absolutes.
Last edited:
Definitely the only time a president has ever tried to add justices that had a biased view on things...
No last time was DJT, he campaigned he would appoint Justices to over turn Roe v Wade, he appointed people vetted by Heritage Foundation as opposed to Roe, and they over turn Roe at 1st chance.
Every President does that. But FDR was the last time a President tried to pack the court. Now Biden wants to place term limits on the Court, along with executive oversight.
The Supreme Court's greatest impact is its dismantling of the administrative state, not Roe v. Wade.
Its greatest impact lately has been in how effectively certain justices can be bought by special interests and continually "forget" to report a ton of free gifts and trips. Quite impressive, really. I'm sure it was just an oversight. Or 10. But yes, what bad could ever come of having specific people in very powerful roles forever? If Trump is elected again, he will try to turn the presidency into a dictatorship for the same reasons. Of course, he would be lucky to live long enough to serve another term anyway.
You may be right, but I would rather have experts setting guidelines not Judges. We know Congress will never be able to pass detailed guidelines on technical issues, legislation will always leave questions. I believe the Courts will find themselves overwhelmed. All they had to do was instead of deferring to agency, Court will give strong consideration the agency finding.
I disagree, every President does that. He wants term limits and ethical standards. I see no problem with either.
FDR is the famous one. It wasn’t about who you appoint. Packing the court usually means trying to add to the nine enough new seats to get a majority. For instance if the current administration was trying to raise the number from 9 to 13…
So instead of 6-3 it was 7-6…
Last edited:
If I recall, most of the Supreme Court members were not FDRs. Because the Court's membership was threatened by FDR, they switched their positions on almost every issue. The famous quote by one of the justices was "A switch in time, saves nine, " which alluded to the almost complete support of FDR's intrusive invasion into every aspect of American life.
