2022 MIDTERM ELECTIONS (Page 3/13)
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 13, 09:35 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

da court ruling




Ray, the problem I have with this... is that I don't believe that Democrat politicians really care, or had any intent to do anything about it.

Let's consider the fact that back in the 70s when Roe v. Wade was decided by the court, the presiding reason was based entirely on the 4th Amendment, essentially, the right to privacy. The positive of course is that it led to Nixon's privacy speech, and the creation and subsequent passage (by Ford) of the Privacy Act... even though it's still somewhat flawed.

But the dissenting opinion was that this was a failed decision, that the court was essentially creating legislation. The court essentially wrote legislation by breaking out pregnancy into trimesters, and defining what was and wasn't allowed within them. Most Democrat lawyers... (and this is true) determined that this was wildly inappropriate for the court. Even famous Democrat legal scholars like Archibald Cox stated that this would likely be overturned because it grossly exceeded the authority of the court.

For decades, it was stated that Roe v. Wade would be overturned at the earliest opportunity. The Democrats did nothing. Even when the SCOTUS leak occurred, the Democrats acted like they had no idea this was coming (despite 40+ years of people saying it would), and yet still did nothing. Then... when the official ruling came out, Democrats were shocked. It's like... not a single point during the 40+ years did they attempt to bother making a Federal law for or against.

No one has said that a law would be unconstitutional... the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision merely means that there's no law respecting for or against abortion... so it automatically goes to the states. The Democrats... at any point in the past 40 years, could have passed some reasonable legislation. The only thing the Democrats have done, is push through the house, some wildly unrealistic abortion law that allows abortion up to and including the point that the baby is already born. As I said previously... if there was any chance that this would have actually passed, the majority of the people who voted for it in the house would NOT have actually voted for it.

This has been nothing except a means to get out the vote for Democrats. It's like I've always said, the Democrat party has no intention of actually solving any problems whatsoever. It's only to gain and maintain power. The more problems the better, it's just more issues they can campaign on to fix... and I really wish you would recognize this.


My personal opinions about abortion aside... there are more than enough people in the house, AND the senate right now that would be willing to pass some form of abortion law. The lowest common denominator would likely include allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, as well as harm to the mother. Again, my opinions not withstanding, there's more than enough support to get something like this passed. But have the Democrats bothered to pass such a thing? Absolutely not. Don't expect the Republicans to, because they generally as a whole do not support abortion. But if the Democrats were really leading the charge on this issue, they would actually do something about it.

When they had a super majority... and yes, they HAD a super majority from 2008-2010. They could have easily passed a law "codifying" (I hate that word) Roe v. Wade into law, which would have made that court decision irrelevant.


.


And that's what I want you to recognize... none of what they're doing is actually about solving problems... it really isn't. It's about creating victims and then placating them temporarily to maintain their control, and force more and more people under government dependence.
olejoedad OCT 13, 10:07 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Ray, the problem I have with this... is that I don't believe that Democrat politicians really care, or had any intent to do anything about it.

Let's consider the fact that back in the 70s when Roe v. Wade was decided by the court, the presiding reason was based entirely on the 4th Amendment, essentially, the right to privacy. The positive of course is that it led to Nixon's privacy speech, and the creation and subsequent passage (by Ford) of the Privacy Act... even though it's still somewhat flawed.

But the dissenting opinion was that this was a failed decision, that the court was essentially creating legislation. The court essentially wrote legislation by breaking out pregnancy into trimesters, and defining what was and wasn't allowed within them. Most Democrat lawyers... (and this is true) determined that this was wildly inappropriate for the court. Even famous Democrat legal scholars like Archibald Cox stated that this would likely be overturned because it grossly exceeded the authority of the court.

For decades, it was stated that Roe v. Wade would be overturned at the earliest opportunity. The Democrats did nothing. Even when the SCOTUS leak occurred, the Democrats acted like they had no idea this was coming (despite 40+ years of people saying it would), and yet still did nothing. Then... when the official ruling came out, Democrats were shocked. It's like... not a single point during the 40+ years did they attempt to bother making a Federal law for or against.

No one has said that a law would be unconstitutional... the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision merely means that there's no law respecting for or against abortion... so it automatically goes to the states. The Democrats... at any point in the past 40 years, could have passed some reasonable legislation. The only thing the Democrats have done, is push through the house, some wildly unrealistic abortion law that allows abortion up to and including the point that the baby is already born. As I said previously... if there was any chance that this would have actually passed, the majority of the people who voted for it in the house would NOT have actually voted for it.

This has been nothing except a means to get out the vote for Democrats. It's like I've always said, the Democrat party has no intention of actually solving any problems whatsoever. It's only to gain and maintain power. The more problems the better, it's just more issues they can campaign on to fix... and I really wish you would recognize this.


My personal opinions about abortion aside... there are more than enough people in the house, AND the senate right now that would be willing to pass some form of abortion law. The lowest common denominator would likely include allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, as well as harm to the mother. Again, my opinions not withstanding, there's more than enough support to get something like this passed. But have the Democrats bothered to pass such a thing? Absolutely not. Don't expect the Republicans to, because they generally as a whole do not support abortion. But if the Democrats were really leading the charge on this issue, they would actually do something about it.

When they had a super majority... and yes, they HAD a super majority from 2008-2010. They could have easily passed a law "codifying" (I hate that word) Roe v. Wade into law, which would have made that court decision irrelevant.


.


And that's what I want you to recognize... none of what they're doing is actually about solving problems... it really isn't. It's about creating victims and then placating them temporarily to maintain their control, and force more and more people under government dependence.



You do realize your trying to use logic with a Sesame Street puppet, right?
Rickady88GT OCT 13, 06:11 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


da court ruling



The SCOTUS did not rule on anyone controlling anyone else. The Court ruled that abortion isn't a right, and by proxy isn't health care. The SCOTUS did EXACTLY what the old angry hag said it would do. OAH said the ruling was a poorly written piece of legislation that could be over ruled. Old ruth wasn't right about much of anything, but she called this one.
You have no evidence of men controlling women, the the SCOTUS won't back your play.
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 13, 06:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

You do realize your trying to use logic with a Sesame Street puppet, right?




I like Ray... we're both from South Florida. I know he's reading it though, even if he may not like what I'm saying.
Jake_Dragon OCT 13, 09:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

tali-ban wants the same

iran mullahs want the same

rump wants the same

tommy tubberville wants the same

all want to conTROLL WOMEN

WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM ROEMEMBER



randye OCT 13, 10:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I like Ray... we're both from South Florida. I know he's reading it though, even if he may not like what I'm saying.


YEARS of documented evidence on this forum shows that he only communicates in simplistic, Orwellian, bumper sticker slogans and his bizarre "haiku".


quote
Originally posted by ray b:


WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM ROEMEMBER




Once you get beyond one or two very simple sentences I'm not convinced he's actually able to follow along Todd.

You can say that you "like" him, and that's fine, but I can assure that being a crazed Marxist / Leftist he hates you with a white hot fury because of what you believe and stand for, even though he isn't capable of actually understanding it.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-14-2022).]

ray b OCT 14, 12:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:


I must have missed the part of the Constitution that PROTECT slave owners. Could you point that out for me?



next to the bit about counting as 3/5 of a person also a slave thing
ray b OCT 14, 12:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


Once you get beyond one or two very simple sentences I'm not convinced he's actually able to follow along Todd.

You can say that you "like" him, and that's fine, but I can assure that being a crazed Marxist / Leftist he hates you with a white hot fury because of what you believe and stand for, even though he isn't capable of actually understanding it.





said the guy who thinks anyone not 100% in lockstep with his goose stepping struts
must be a marxist as that is all he understands
rump worship or some commie BS with nothing and no one in the middle between the extremes

what a narrow limited almost BLIND world view you and your followers have here

and yes the world wide results of being against the tide will show

woman life freedom is an idea only fools oppose at their peril

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-14-2022).]

BHall71 OCT 14, 01:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


da court ruling




Ignorance is bliss eh? How about you actually read the court ruling and do something it doesn't seem you do much of is and think.
Rickady88GT OCT 14, 02:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


next to the bit about counting as 3/5 of a person also a slave thing



So should we also hold to a flat Earth belief as well sense at the time that was a belief of many. OR do we go by the current interpretation of an educated and refined society? If YOU want to live in the stone age, THAT is YOUR handicap, NOT a trait of those you hate. BTW, Ray, the Constitution DOES NOT say slaves are 3/5. The Constitution says ALL humans have the same rights and slavery is banned. Just a news flash for the slow.