EC-Bills Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Hello tourism campaign! 385671[/snapback] Hah. StuckinCincy was right. You are on a roll
erynthered Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Awesome choice! Anyone know who the hell he is? 385581[/snapback] Did you look before you posted. "awesome choice, do you know who he is?" Are you an idiot? You're better than that SR........
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I think that the Dems should probably consider that he is about as good as they are going to get and go ahead and confirm him. Hopefully, the Music City Miracle case will be argued in the next session and he can rule that it was indeed a forward lateral.
SilverNRed Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Did you look before you posted. "awesome choice, do you know who he is?" Are you an idiot? You're better than that SR........ 385700[/snapback] It was a joke, man.
erynthered Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 It was a joke, man. 385708[/snapback] My fault then. Sorry....... I heard he has Bill's Tags, could be wrong, but.............
VABills Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Born in Buffalo......raised in Indiana. 385655[/snapback] That hasn't shown to be a very stable combination around these parts.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 That hasn't shown to be a very stable combination around these parts. 385722[/snapback] Good one.
Mickey Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 regardless, if R v. W was overturned it would just go back to the states. MD has already passed a state amendment declaring abortion to be legal, so it will always be legal here in MD. 385602[/snapback] No, it won't work that way. If abortion can be constitutionally outlawed congress can pass a law making it illegal. The preemption doctrine would dictate that federal law would preempt any contrary state law. Given the current make up of the House and Senate I predict such a law would pass about 5 minutes after Roe was overturned. You'll see all sorts of "states rights" lovers suddenly sing a different tune when NY or MD, etc, decide that they want to keep abortion legal after congress has made it a crime. That is not even to consider what would happen to a number of other precedents having to do with privacy that depend largely on Roe.
SilverNRed Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 That hasn't shown to be a very stable combination around these parts. 385722[/snapback] HA! Can't believe I missed that.
Mickey Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Exactly...goes back to the states...works for me. 385613[/snapback] It doesn't work that way. Congress will pass a law making abortion a crime overriding any contrary positions by the states. My guess is they will cite the commerce clause as giving them jurisdiction over wombs. I also predict that states rights devotees will do a flip-flop when it comes to states wanting to keep abortion legal. Very similar to the dizzying flip-flops they did over the Defense of Marriage Act and the shameful Schiavo escapade not to mention Bush v. Gore.
OGTEleven Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 No, it won't work that way. If abortion can be constitutionally outlawed congress can pass a law making it illegal. The preemption doctrine would dictate that federal law would preempt any contrary state law. Given the current make up of the House and Senate I predict such a law would pass about 5 minutes after Roe was overturned. You'll see all sorts of "states rights" lovers suddenly sing a different tune when NY or MD, etc, decide that they want to keep abortion legal after congress has made it a crime. That is not even to consider what would happen to a number of other precedents having to do with privacy that depend largely on Roe. 385747[/snapback] Hey Mick, There is no need to put people down as "states righers". Some people earnestly believe that arbortion is murder. Some disagree. If you believed it, you would have to believe that every state had the right to make murder legal in order to give them the same power over abortion. I'm not sure, maybe technically states could make murder legal in their borders. There are some things that people hold higher than states rights. It is not necessary to pigeon hole their argument as mutually exclusive.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Hey Mick, Some people earnestly believe that arbortion is murder. Some disagree. If you believed it, you would have to believe that every state had the right to make murder legal in order to give them the same power over abortion. I'm not sure, maybe technically states could make murder legal in their borders. There are some things that people hold higher than states rights. It is not necessary to pigeon hole their argument as mutually exclusive. 385779[/snapback] The "abortion is Murder" crowd is still a vocal Minority. Does anyone know where to find poll numbers on what views Americans have about Abortion? I personally feel that abortion is a horrific form of birth control. But when the only birth control method pushed by the government is abstinence, there is sure to be a problem.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Goes to show you, George Bush is NO conservative.
Corp000085 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 My opinion on this guy is that if it's apparents that he's going to vote down roe v. wade, rehnquist will have a legacy too... He'll stay till he dies. I sincerely hope that roberts comes out and states that he won't vote it down, call himself a moderate, get confirmed, and all will be well. However, he is still from buffalo and loves the bills, which leads to him probably choking and screwing something up for himself.
jimshiz Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 My opinion on this guy is that if it's apparents that he's going to vote down roe v. wade, rehnquist will have a legacy too... He'll stay till he dies. I sincerely hope that roberts comes out and states that he won't vote it down, call himself a moderate, get confirmed, and all will be well. However, he is still from buffalo and loves the bills, which leads to him probably choking and screwing something up for himself. 385920[/snapback] http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036950.cfm "liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz also think Roe was bad law"
Kelly the Dog Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036950.cfm "liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz also think Roe was bad law" 386068[/snapback] Yet both are decidely pro-choice. Because Roe vs. Wade is "bad law" doesn't mean you are against its basic tenet, which in this case is pro-life vs. pro-choice. Nice try though.
PTS Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Roe v. Wade is safe. 385593[/snapback] I think and hope you are wrong. I believe he's Roman Catholic. Roe v. Wade safe? Not unless he's a Kerry-like Catholic.
Terry Tate Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Yet both are decidely pro-choice. Because Roe vs. Wade is "bad law" doesn't mean you are against its basic tenet, which in this case is pro-life vs. pro-choice. Nice try though. I'm not sure what 'nice try' you think you're thwarting there; I think the point was that aside from personal beliefs, even a supporter of legalized abortion can be in disagreement with the underlying legal foundation of Roe v Wade. I recall reading an opinion piece by a pro-choice, constitutional law scholar who felt that Roe V Wade was flawed. He did believe, however, there was possibly a better case to be made for it elsewhere in the Constitution. Should Roe V Wade be overturned, it will become a state's right issue. As much as I can't stand the constant misery of Mickey's posts, I do agree with one point he made - there will be an attempt by some in Congress to make federal law outlawing abortion. I just strongly disagree that there's anywhere near enough of them to be successful. Not even close, and I don't think it ever will be.
OnTheRocks Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 there will be an attempt by some in Congress to make federal law outlawing abortion. I just strongly disagree that there's anywhere near enough of them to be successful. Not even close, and I don't think it ever will be. 386114[/snapback] that might be the case....those that try to get abortion outlawed maybe doing so because that was a platform they ran on.....and to appease their constituents they have to at least show an effort. i agree however that there isn't nearly enough support to accomplish the abolishment of abortion.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I'm not sure what 'nice try' you think you're thwarting there; I think the point was that aside from personal beliefs, even a supporter of legalized abortion can be in disagreement with the underlying legal foundation of Roe v Wade. I recall reading an opinion piece by a pro-choice, constitutional law scholar who felt that Roe V Wade was flawed. He did believe, however, there was possibly a better case to be made for it elsewhere in the Constitution. Should Roe V Wade be overturned, it will become a state's right issue. As much as I can't stand the constant misery of Mickey's posts, I do agree with one point he made - there will be an attempt by some in Congress to make federal law outlawing abortion. I just strongly disagree that there's anywhere near enough of them to be successful. Not even close, and I don't think it ever will be. 386114[/snapback] I just read it differently than you. The point was, it was pretty clear to me that the poster was using the quote from the article to imply that even liberals like Ginsburg and Dickowitz were against Roe v. Wade, meaning they were on the pro-lifers side of the argument. Especially when Ginsburg's objection was "seemed to me not the way courts generally work."
Recommended Posts