+ Reply to Thread
Page 474 of 530 FirstFirst ... 374 424 464 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 484 524 ... LastLast
Results 11,826 to 11,850 of 13245
  1. #11826

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    [Moderator]

    Extremely poor taste, and inappropriate.
    Sometimes, you'd be better served by remaining silent, than to openly display your hatred. You can disagree with the point of view all you want, but you should at least acknowledge that there's a group of people concerned with the other body....the one that gets no input to who 'controls' it.

    Seriously, folks. I frequently fight to keep the political threads from being shut down. And, to be honest, my Moderators mailbox would be a lot less busy without them. I feel that, in general, the political threads contribute to NYYFans. But, when we start wishing someone would die, and when we refer to the President of the United States as the pussy grabber in chief, you're not making it easy for me to justify leaving the threads open.

    Remember the ground rules. You don't need to agree with the POTUS, you certainly don't need to like him, but blatant disrespect is unwelcome. If you can't find a way to disagree with him without disrespecting him, I suggest you stay away from the discussion. And no, I don't need to hear about what Trump did or said that was worse. That's irrelevant.

    [/Moderator]
    You're right and I'm out as I can't show this person any respect as you're asking for an awful lot from some of us just so you can keep this discussion thread open. This man is damaging this country on a daily basis and you want us to not show him disrespect when he's disrespecting what this country used to stand for.

  2. #11827
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    But the opposing viewpoint is that human lives are more important than a mother's 'choice.' I personally believe what Bill Clinton proposed all those years ago.....abortion should be legal, safe, and RARE. When you reduce it to "telling women what to do with their bodies," you embolden those who believe you're killing babies. I agree with your position; I disagree with the way you present it. [Not necessarily you personally, but in general for those who insist it's just a woman's 'choice,' and nothing more than that.]

    Now, with all the comments I've seen from Judge Kavanaugh about respecting previous decisions, I don't see his addition to SCOTUS as putting Roe vs. Wade in jeopardy. So, his nomination is hardly an attack on you, your daughter, or your friends.

    And in a grander sense, Roe only served to override state laws restricting abortion. If SCOTUS overturned it, I don't see many states (outside of maybe Utah) passing laws to restrict it. The passion on both sides of the issue makes us lose sight of the fact that overturning the case would NOT suddenly outlaw abortion in the United States.
    Thanks.
    You can't seriously believe that. There are already laws in close to 20 states that do everything short of making abortion illegal. If the SCOTUS reverses Roe, or kills it with 1,000 cuts, it will do nothing other than make abortions go underground and become more dangerous. Rich (white) women will be able to go to the coast to get a legal, safe abortion. Poor (brown) women will be forced to go to some back alley and risk their health and safety.

  3. #11828

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    But the opposing viewpoint is that human lives are more important than a mother's 'choice.' I personally believe what Bill Clinton proposed all those years ago.....abortion should be legal, safe, and RARE. When you reduce it to "telling women what to do with their bodies," you embolden those who believe you're killing babies. I agree with your position; I disagree with the way you present it. [Not necessarily you personally, but in general for those who insist it's just a woman's 'choice,' and nothing more than that.]

    Now, with all the comments I've seen from Judge Kavanaugh about respecting previous decisions, I don't see his addition to SCOTUS as putting Roe vs. Wade in jeopardy. So, his nomination is hardly an attack on you, your daughter, or your friends.

    And in a grander sense, Roe only served to override state laws restricting abortion. If SCOTUS overturned it, I don't see many states (outside of maybe Utah) passing laws to restrict it. The passion on both sides of the issue makes us lose sight of the fact that overturning the case would NOT suddenly outlaw abortion in the United States.
    Thanks.
    I do not respect the opposing viewpoint. I think it is wrong and it is harmful to women. There are no babies being killed. Science. I think Bill Clinton was wrong too. Abortions should be legal and safe for women that want them. Like any other healthcare procedure. The frequency is none of the government's business.

    Kavanaugh has said he respects Roe as precedent as an appeals court judge which is the correct thing under the law. That is completely different than as a supreme court judge where overturning "wrong" decisions have their own precedents. For example, I don't see how his saying an immigrant would not be facing an undue burden if the government refused to allow her to see an abortion provider is supposed to somehow instill confidence in his judgement on reproductive health.

    As for the states, I also think you are completely wrong. I believe there are 21 that would either make it illegal or so difficult that it might as well be illegal. I think you are willing to play fast and loose with a woman's right to choose and consequently showing a willingness to put their lives at risk. I find that pretty appalling.
    The feminist agenda ... encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ~Pat Robertson 1992

  4. #11829
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Abortion will still be available in this country for wealthy women.

  5. #11830
    Reject Fascism
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CT

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Abortion will still be available in this country for wealthy women.
    As will healthcare for wealthy folks
    2018: the year the USA put children in cages

  6. #11831

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Utah wouldn’t even make the top 10 in states looking to ban abortion.

  7. #11832
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Brett Kavanaugh.

    Yale Law School. Clerked for Justice Kennedy. Twelve years of experience on the DC Circuit. His many opinions seem to indicate a dedication to the Constitution, and to precedent, and to be opposed to courts creating laws where none were properly created by the Legislature. Yes, he's Conservative. That's not disqualifying.

    On abortion rights, I've seen this, "all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow." Yet, the Washington Director of MoveOn has stated, "Anyone who votes for Kavanaugh is voting to criminalize abortion and punish women." If we're outraged when the President lies (and we should be), perhaps we should be outraged at MoveOn's hyperbole?

    On the Affordable Care Act, his opinion seemed to be based on Congressional overreach. The penalty vs. tax issue is legally justifiable, and was only settled by SCOTUS with a very controversial interpretation. The take-away is that his opinion addressed the Constitutionality of the law, and didn't go into detail about whether or not he thought the law was a good idea.

    From all indications, he has selected clerks from a wide background, particularly those who don't agree with him, so he can get multiple opinions from his staff before coming to a conclusion. And, by all reports, he is extremely thorough in his judicial opinions.

    I have absolutely no doubt that he will decline answering any hypothetical questions about specific issues, like abortion rights, just as the last half dozen (or so) nominees have done.

    The Cato Instittute opined

    "Brett Kavanaugh is a strong pick for the Supreme Court.

    In his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated a devotion to legal text and constitutional principle. I admire his dedication to the Constitution’s structural protections for liberty, his steadfast defense of the rights of speech and religious conscience, and most notably his willingness to question the excesses of the regulatory state. He has repeatedly affirmed that judges serve not as the champions of faction, but as the readers of laws and adjudicators of disputes."

    The bold is my emphasis, because I find it to be a pretty solid definition of what a judge should be.

    So, on what grounds will the Democrats attack him? Conservatism is not disqualifying. Catholicism is not disqualifying. Being an adherent to the Constitution is not disqualifying (thank goodness). His judicial temperament seems to be strong.

    Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court. That ship has regrettably sailed, and using Garland as a means to oppose virtually any GOP nomination is nonsensical. I could see a tactic to delay the confirmation until after the November elections, using the Majority Leader's own words against him. But, I do NOT see a reasonable (read that -- non-partisan) basis for opposing his nomination.

    So, will the entirety of the opposition be 'because Trump?' Or, is there an objectionable aspect to Judge Kavanaugh that I'm missing?

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  8. #11833
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    It's another in along line of corporations before citizens picks. He'll get opposition and be confirmed like 58-42 or something like that.


    Had McConnell not been a (I'm not allowed to type this) and Garland been conformed there would have been much less opposition to this pick whether it was now Gorsuch or Kavaugh.


    But this is really a battle over Republican Obstructionism.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  9. #11834
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    I think you are willing to play fast and loose with a woman's right to choose and consequently showing a willingness to put their lives at risk. I find that pretty appalling.
    Not in the least. Just because I deplore the phrase "right to choose," doesn't mean I'm playing anything fast or loose. Because, in place of "right to choose" I use the term "right to have an abortion." I believe that phrasing is more honest.

    Regardless of what I call it, I believe a woman has that right. Full stop. Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge the basis for the opposing point of view. That doesn't mean I embrace it, or agree with it. It just means I see where it comes from. And, in my experience, trying to understand where someone with the other viewpoint is coming from is more effective than simply saying "well, you're wrong."

    Of course, I may be wrong.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  10. #11835
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Brett Kavanaugh.

    Yale Law School. Clerked for Justice Kennedy. Twelve years of experience on the DC Circuit. His many opinions seem to indicate a dedication to the Constitution, and to precedent, and to be opposed to courts creating laws where none were properly created by the Legislature. Yes, he's Conservative. That's not disqualifying.

    On abortion rights, I've seen this, "all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow." Yet, the Washington Director of MoveOn has stated, "Anyone who votes for Kavanaugh is voting to criminalize abortion and punish women." If we're outraged when the President lies (and we should be), perhaps we should be outraged at MoveOn's hyperbole?

    On the Affordable Care Act, his opinion seemed to be based on Congressional overreach. The penalty vs. tax issue is legally justifiable, and was only settled by SCOTUS with a very controversial interpretation. The take-away is that his opinion addressed the Constitutionality of the law, and didn't go into detail about whether or not he thought the law was a good idea.

    From all indications, he has selected clerks from a wide background, particularly those who don't agree with him, so he can get multiple opinions from his staff before coming to a conclusion. And, by all reports, he is extremely thorough in his judicial opinions.

    I have absolutely no doubt that he will decline answering any hypothetical questions about specific issues, like abortion rights, just as the last half dozen (or so) nominees have done.

    The Cato Instittute opined

    "Brett Kavanaugh is a strong pick for the Supreme Court.

    In his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated a devotion to legal text and constitutional principle. I admire his dedication to the Constitution’s structural protections for liberty, his steadfast defense of the rights of speech and religious conscience, and most notably his willingness to question the excesses of the regulatory state. He has repeatedly affirmed that judges serve not as the champions of faction, but as the readers of laws and adjudicators of disputes."

    The bold is my emphasis, because I find it to be a pretty solid definition of what a judge should be.

    So, on what grounds will the Democrats attack him? Conservatism is not disqualifying. Catholicism is not disqualifying. Being an adherent to the Constitution is not disqualifying (thank goodness). His judicial temperament seems to be strong.

    Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court. That ship has regrettably sailed, and using Garland as a means to oppose virtually any GOP nomination is nonsensical. I could see a tactic to delay the confirmation until after the November elections, using the Majority Leader's own words against him. But, I do NOT see a reasonable (read that -- non-partisan) basis for opposing his nomination.

    So, will the entirety of the opposition be 'because Trump?' Or, is there an objectionable aspect to Judge Kavanaugh that I'm missing?
    What you have bonded is nonsense boilerplate. That’s what they always say, but somehow when political disputes come up, they’re willing to get highly political. The whole "calling balls and strikes" thing is a fantasy.

  11. #11836
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Had McConnell not been a (I'm not allowed to type this) and Garland been conformed there would have been much less opposition to this pick whether it was now Gorsuch or Kavaugh.


    But this is really a battle over Republican Obstructionism.
    Again, I agree completely that Garland should have not only had his hearing, but been confirmed. And I agree completely that Republican obstructionism (particularly WRT Garland) was wrong, and did a disservice to the American People.

    What I question is the tactic being used to fight Republican obstructionism. Because if Republic obstructionism was bad (and I believe it was), then how can Democratic obstructionism be good?

    A Supreme Court nominee should be considered based on his education, experience, and judicial temperament. He should NOT be judged based on the political party of the President who nominated him. McConnell was WRONG in his treatment of Garland. Is that really the precedent we want to establish, going forward?

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  12. #11837
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Why hasn't President Trump and the Republican Party called for Jim Jordan to resign immediately?
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  13. #11838

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    well Rick Santorum doesn't like the nominee so there's at least that.
    Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. ~ Dale Carnegie

  14. #11839
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Again, I agree completely that Garland should have not only had his hearing, but been confirmed. And I agree completely that Republican obstructionism (particularly WRT Garland) was wrong, and did a disservice to the American People.

    What I question is the tactic being used to fight Republican obstructionism. Because if Republic obstructionism was bad (and I believe it was), then how can Democratic obstructionism be good?

    A Supreme Court nominee should be considered based on his education, experience, and judicial temperament. He should NOT be judged based on the political party of the President who nominated him. McConnell was WRONG in his treatment of Garland. Is that really the precedent we want to establish, going forward?
    There are no moral victories when determining the direction of the Supreme Court for perhaps the next 30 years.
    That seems to be a concept you are having trouble with.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  15. #11840

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Not in the least. Just because I deplore the phrase "right to choose," doesn't mean I'm playing anything fast or loose. Because, in place of "right to choose" I use the term "right to have an abortion." I believe that phrasing is more honest.

    Regardless of what I call it, I believe a woman has that right. Full stop. Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge the basis for the opposing point of view. That doesn't mean I embrace it, or agree with it. It just means I see where it comes from. And, in my experience, trying to understand where someone with the other viewpoint is coming from is more effective than simply saying "well, you're wrong."

    Of course, I may be wrong.
    I fully acknowledge the basis for the opposing point of view and understand fully where it comes from. I reject it. There is no gray area here. Understanding the other viewpoint is meaningless if you are not going to give in to it. There is no compromise. I doubt there is a single pro-lifer out there that gives a single f that I understand their point of view if it does not lead to banning abortion.

    You can call it whatever you want. I have no problem whatsoever with the words right to an abortion. I just prefer right to choose because that's how I would like women to feel. Like they can choose to have and keep a baby, choose to have and give up for adoption, choose to have an abortion. I also believe it should be between a woman and a doctor and what anyone else believes should be of zero importance.

    Maybe you believe that "his nomination is hardly an attack on you, your daughter, or your friends" and maybe you "don't see many states (outside of maybe Utah) passing laws to restrict it" but you could be wrong. That's what I mean by fast and loose. The idea that you might be wrong is devastating to women.
    The feminist agenda ... encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ~Pat Robertson 1992

  16. #11841
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Again, I agree completely that Garland should have not only had his hearing, but been confirmed. And I agree completely that Republican obstructionism (particularly WRT Garland) was wrong, and did a disservice to the American People.

    What I question is the tactic being used to fight Republican obstructionism. Because if Republic obstructionism was bad (and I believe it was), then how can Democratic obstructionism be good?

    A Supreme Court nominee should be considered based on his education, experience, and judicial temperament. He should NOT be judged based on the political party of the President who nominated him. McConnell was WRONG in his treatment of Garland. Is that really the precedent we want to establish, going forward?
    That precedent has already been established.

  17. #11842
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by fredgmuggs View Post
    well Rick Santorum doesn't like the nominee so there's at least that.
    santorum. Heh heh heh.

  18. #11843
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    That precedent has already been established.
    You're a precedent that has already been established.

    But, yeah, I get it. Perhaps a better means to say that in actual English would be "do we want that precedent to become the standard we want to use going forward."

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  19. #11844
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    You're a precedent that has already been established.

    But, yeah, I get it. Perhaps a better means to say that in actual English would be "do we want that precedent to become the standard we want to use going forward."
    Is that in question?

    If a Democrat is elected president in 2020 but the Republicans retain a Senate majority, how do you expect that president's SCOTUS nominees to be treated? Will the Democrats' behavior now make any difference to that?

  20. #11845
    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    You're a precedent that has already been established.

    But, yeah, I get it. Perhaps a better means to say that in actual English would be "do we want that precedent to become the standard we want to use going forward."
    I would guess that most agree it's not the one we want but it's the one the GOP is going to use so taking the high road is not going to be what is best for the country if you want a court that believes in the Constitution as a living document.

  21. #11846
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Brett Kavanaugh.

    Yale Law School. Clerked for Justice Kennedy. Twelve years of experience on the DC Circuit. His many opinions seem to indicate a dedication to the Constitution, and to precedent, and to be opposed to courts creating laws where none were properly created by the Legislature. Yes, he's Conservative. That's not disqualifying.

    On abortion rights, I've seen this, "all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow." Yet, the Washington Director of MoveOn has stated, "Anyone who votes for Kavanaugh is voting to criminalize abortion and punish women." If we're outraged when the President lies (and we should be), perhaps we should be outraged at MoveOn's hyperbole?

    On the Affordable Care Act, his opinion seemed to be based on Congressional overreach. The penalty vs. tax issue is legally justifiable, and was only settled by SCOTUS with a very controversial interpretation. The take-away is that his opinion addressed the Constitutionality of the law, and didn't go into detail about whether or not he thought the law was a good idea.

    From all indications, he has selected clerks from a wide background, particularly those who don't agree with him, so he can get multiple opinions from his staff before coming to a conclusion. And, by all reports, he is extremely thorough in his judicial opinions.

    I have absolutely no doubt that he will decline answering any hypothetical questions about specific issues, like abortion rights, just as the last half dozen (or so) nominees have done.

    The Cato Instittute opined

    "Brett Kavanaugh is a strong pick for the Supreme Court.

    In his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated a devotion to legal text and constitutional principle. I admire his dedication to the Constitution’s structural protections for liberty, his steadfast defense of the rights of speech and religious conscience, and most notably his willingness to question the excesses of the regulatory state. He has repeatedly affirmed that judges serve not as the champions of faction, but as the readers of laws and adjudicators of disputes."

    The bold is my emphasis, because I find it to be a pretty solid definition of what a judge should be.

    So, on what grounds will the Democrats attack him? Conservatism is not disqualifying. Catholicism is not disqualifying. Being an adherent to the Constitution is not disqualifying (thank goodness). His judicial temperament seems to be strong.

    Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court. That ship has regrettably sailed, and using Garland as a means to oppose virtually any GOP nomination is nonsensical. I could see a tactic to delay the confirmation until after the November elections, using the Majority Leader's own words against him. But, I do NOT see a reasonable (read that -- non-partisan) basis for opposing his nomination.

    So, will the entirety of the opposition be 'because Trump?' Or, is there an objectionable aspect to Judge Kavanaugh that I'm missing?
    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    What you have bonded is nonsense boilerplate. That’s what they always say, but somehow when political disputes come up, they’re willing to get highly political. The whole "calling balls and strikes" thing is a fantasy.
    All these conservative justices talk in appointment hearings about how they are "constitutionalist" or "adhere to the original text" but every time they get appointed they become activists. They find legal loophole ways to overturn precedent they don't agree with. In particular with this list of names given to Trump by Leonard Leo. The Heritage, AFP and Federalist foundations get funded by the Kochs who create this pipeline of activist judges who slash regulation which makes them tons of money which they use to further push their pro-business/anti-consumer agenda. It's a downward spiral.

    I applaud Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania who came out ahead of Kavanaugh even being named and said he would not vote for anybody Trump nominates from "the list".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Casey (D), PA
    “In a nation with over 700 sitting federal judges, many of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, it is outrageous that President Trump will nominate from a list of just 25 dictated to him by the Heritage Foundation. This list is the bidding of corporate special interests hell-bent on handing health care over to insurance companies, crushing unions that represent working men and women, and promoting policies that will leave the middle-class further behind. Any judge on this list is fruit of a corrupt process straight from the D.C. swamp.

    I will oppose the nomination the President will make tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far Right, big corporations, and Washington special interests.”

  22. #11847
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    If a Democrat is elected president in 2020 but the Republicans retain a Senate majority, how do you expect that president's SCOTUS nominees to be treated?
    Poorly. But, that's not justification for the Democrats to play the same game.
    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3
    Will the Democrats' behavior now make any difference to that?
    I doubt it. Will the Democrats behavior now make any difference on how our government operates 10-20 years from now? It very well might.
    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara
    I would guess that most agree it's not the one we want but it's the one the GOP is going to use so taking the high road is not going to be what is best for the country if you want a court that believes in the Constitution as a living document.
    So, any hopes of regaining civility in government and having a government that serves the people first, and not the party, are forever lost?

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  23. #11848
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Poorly. But, that's not justification for the Democrats to play the same game. I doubt it. Will the Democrats behavior now make any difference on how our government operates 10-20 years from now? It very well might.
    So, any hopes of regaining civility in government and having a government that serves the people first, and not the party, are forever lost?
    I believe in civility, but not as a one-way street that only allows the non-civil to take greater advantage. Perhaps that chance is forever lost, but pretending otherwise won’t help.

  24. #11849
    NYYF HOF


    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Clid

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Abortion will still be available in this country for wealthy women.
    Dude abortion will be available for anyone who wants it. Like drugs, guns, prostitutes, etc. I'm not saying abortion should be illegal but if you want something in this world. You can get it.

  25. #11850

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    I do not respect the opposing viewpoint. I think it is wrong and it is harmful to women. There are no babies being killed. Science. I think Bill Clinton was wrong too. Abortions should be legal and safe for women that want them. Like any other healthcare procedure. The frequency is none of the government's business.

    Kavanaugh has said he respects Roe as precedent as an appeals court judge which is the correct thing under the law. That is completely different than as a supreme court judge where overturning "wrong" decisions have their own precedents. For example, I don't see how his saying an immigrant would not be facing an undue burden if the government refused to allow her to see an abortion provider is supposed to somehow instill confidence in his judgement on reproductive health.

    As for the states, I also think you are completely wrong. I believe there are 21 that would either make it illegal or so difficult that it might as well be illegal. I think you are willing to play fast and loose with a woman's right to choose and consequently showing a willingness to put their lives at risk. I find that pretty appalling.
    I disagree with Bill Clinton, too. Safe and legal. Frequency is irrelevant. I think AZ would be one where it'd be illegal almost overnight.

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Abortion will still be available in this country for wealthy women.
    I said this right after Kennedy resigned. The wealthy will pay for safe abortions under the table, just as they did before Roe. Everyone else will be at risk of death from organ failure, blood loss, and sepsis... just as they were before Roe. Already, in places such as Texas, rural women -- often poor -- have to drive several hours to get to a clinic. (I think Mississippi and South Dakota each have just one clinic left.) That's if they can afford to take off work and pay for the abortion in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Not in the least. Just because I deplore the phrase "right to choose," doesn't mean I'm playing anything fast or loose. Because, in place of "right to choose" I use the term "right to have an abortion." I believe that phrasing is more honest.

    Regardless of what I call it, I believe a woman has that right. Full stop. Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge the basis for the opposing point of view. That doesn't mean I embrace it, or agree with it. It just means I see where it comes from. And, in my experience, trying to understand where someone with the other viewpoint is coming from is more effective than simply saying "well, you're wrong."

    Of course, I may be wrong.
    I understand the other viewpoint, though. I used to hold it. I was wrong. As Tex said, they don't care if we understand their viewpoint.
    "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
    -- Declaration of Independence

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (6 members and 8 guests)

  1. philleotardo
  2. JL25and3
  3. Maynerd

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts