America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by RayR. 121 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
OPINION: Texas Has Cleared a Path to the End of Roe v. Wade
bgz Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I would say that a man trying to control women in that way is evil.

See you in hell dg, if you're right, you'll be there.
bgz Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I imagine very few people getting in to heaven if it exists... I suspect if it exists, Jehovah's Witness are probably correct (or close to it, can't imagine there being a hard cap).
RayR Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
Not interested in your convoluted reasoning Ben.

Texas, Abortion and the Constitution
By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 9, 2021

Quote:
Last week, this column addressed state nullification and secession under the U.S. Constitution. It argued, in effect, that when the government fails to protect fundamental liberties or actively assaults them — as it has done in the past 18 months under the guise of public health — the states and individuals can peacefully ignore the government and, if necessary, leave it.

The concept of states leaving the federal government has been dead and buried since the outcome of the War Between the States. Yet four years after the war, the Supreme Court recognized secession in an old Texas case and held that three-quarters of the states would need to consent for any one of them to leave.

Nullification posits that any state individually — through its legislature or highest court — can determine that an action of the federal government is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore it is nullified and may legally be ignored in that state

Both ideas were embraced by many who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they were defended forcefully by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Last week, the Supreme Court revived the concept of nullification..

Here is the backstory.

More...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/andrew-p-napolitano/texas-abortion-and-the-constitution/
frankj1 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
isn't this the guy who said impeach Trump and (allegedly...snicker) is a ghey sexual predator?
You've used him as your expert in a couple of other bizarre stances. Even I could find better character folks to take a legal stand against abortion as I seem to recall you have in the past.

Seriously? A cheating-with-men-while-married-former judge-LIBERTARIAN?
You should be looking to distance yourself from this one.
bgz Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
RayR wrote:
Not interested in your convoluted reasoning Ben.


Not interested in reading about evil immoral closet homos pretending to be good real Americans...

Been working on my tan, I hear it's hot in hell... and there's not a lot of room in heaven.

You really believe you're good enough to get in?

I mean, seriously... that's pretty egocentric thinking right?

You're talking about a god who nuked a place because they liked to put it in the ol' pooper you know... and you quoted this one.

I think we know where you're going pal.
izonfire Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
Whistlebritches wrote:
What would I say............I hope you're just yanking my chain.I find it quite difficult to believe anyone could make a justifiable argument for this stance

I’m not advocating the butchering of a newborn.
I would wait until they grow up and prove themselves to be vile, putrid a$$holes.
It is then when I would perform the abortions retroactively…
rfenst Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
RayR wrote:
Not interested in your convoluted reasoning Ben.

Texas, Abortion and the Constitution
By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 9, 2021


Last week, this column addressed state nullification and secession under the U.S. Constitution. It argued, in effect, that when the government fails to protect fundamental liberties or actively assaults them — as it has done in the past 18 months under the guise of public health — the states and individuals can peacefully ignore the government and, if necessary, leave it. 18 months is enough time to have to leave this nation over... abortion working its ways through the courts to SCOTUS? Why are you so impatient?

The concept of states leaving the federal government has been dead and buried since the outcome of the War Between the States. Yet four years after the war, the Supreme Court recognized secession in an old Texas case and held that three-quarters of the states would need to consent for any one of them to leave. So leave. Oh, wait! You don't even live in Texas

Nullification posits that any state individually — through its legislature or highest court — can determine that an action of the federal government is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore it is nullified and may legally be ignored in that state. Both ideas were embraced by many who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they were defended forcefully by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. So what. You want to see your state leave the Union over the age-old issue of abortion?

Last week, the Supreme Court revived the concept of nullification...
rfenst Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
Justice Dept. sues Texas over state’s new abortion law

AP

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday sued Texas over a new state law that bans most abortions, arguing that it was enacted “in open defiance of the Constitution.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Texas, asks a federal judge to declare that the law is invalid, “to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated.”

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference announcing the suit.

The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully infringes on the constitutional rights of women and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law. Federal officials are also concerned other states could enact similar laws that would “deprive their citizens of their constitutional rights,” he said.

“It is settled constitutional law that ‘a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,’” the lawsuit reads. “But Texas has done just that.”


The Texas law, known as SB8, prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity — usually around six weeks, before some women know they’re pregnant. Courts have blocked other states from imposing similar restrictions, but Texas’ law differs significantly because it leaves enforcement to private citizens through civil lawsuits instead of criminal prosecutors.

Pressure had been mounting on the Justice Department not only from the White House – President Joe Biden has said the law is “almost un-American” – but also from Democrats in Congress, who wanted Garland to take action. Earlier this week, Garland vowed the Justice Department would step in to enforce a federal law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

That law, commonly known as the FACE Act, normally prohibits physically obstructing access to abortion clinics by blocking entrances or threatening to use force to intimidate or interfere with someone. It also prohibits damaging property at abortion clinics and other reproductive health centers.


The lawsuit filed on Thursday seeks an immediate injunction to prohibit enforcing the law in Texas. Under the statute, someone could bring a lawsuit — even if they have no connection to the woman getting an abortion — and could be entitled to at least $10,000 in damages if they prevail in court.

“The statute deputizes all private citizens, without any showing of personal connection or injury, to serve as bounty hunters authorized to recover at least $10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman’s exercise of her constitutional rights,” Garland said. “The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review.”

The attorney general also argued the Texas law could expose some federal employees at different agencies across the government to civil liability for doing their jobs.

The Texas law is the nation’s biggest curb to abortion since the Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion providers have said they will comply, but already some of Texas’ roughly two dozen abortion clinics have temporarily stopped offering abortion services altogether. Clinics in neighboring states, meanwhile, have seen a surge in patients from Texas.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group and a driver of the new law, said Thursday in anticipation of the lawsuit that it was already working with other states to pass similar measures.

“The Biden administration’s ploy represents a desperate attempt to stop the life-saving law by any means necessary,” the group said in a statement.

Renae Eze, a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, said his office was confident the courts would uphold the law.

“The most precious freedom is life itself. Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion,” Eze said.

The law provides no exceptions in cases of rape or incest, which Abbott on Tuesday defended by falsely asserting that women still have “at least six weeks” to get an abortion. A woman who has regular periods and is carefully tracking her cycle could know of a positive result no earlier than about four weeks into a pregnancy.

Abbott also said Texas would strive to “eliminate all rapists from the streets.” Recent surveys by the U.S. Department of Justice found that most rapes go unreported to police, including a 2019 survey that found that only about 1 in 3 victims reported they were raped or sexually assaulted.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Texas abortion clinics suing over the law, welcomed the Biden administration stepping in.

“It’s a gamechanger that the Department of Justice has joined the legal battle to restore constitutionally protected abortion access in Texas and disarm vigilantes looking to collect their bounties,” said Nancy Northup, the group’s president.

Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement that the lawsuit is a critical first step “to righting this injustice for the people of Texas, and to prevent this catastrophe from playing out in other states that have pledged to follow Texas’ lead.”

Amiri said in an interview that she expected the lawsuit to move quickly, possibly reaching the Supreme Court within weeks.
RayR Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
frankj1 wrote:
isn't this the guy who said impeach Trump and (allegedly...snicker) is a ghey sexual predator?
You've used him as your expert in a couple of other bizarre stances. Even I could find better character folks to take a legal stand against abortion as I seem to recall you have in the past.

Seriously? A cheating-with-men-while-married-former judge-LIBERTARIAN?
You should be looking to distance yourself from this one.


Really Frank, how low into the depths of hell can you go in your hatred for real libertarians? I know, we must have butthurt you somewhere. Hense your cheap blatant leftist-like attempt at character assassination.

Immediately siding with a male Me Too'er looking for a big FOX payday by making allegations of sexual misconduct? The exact same guy who made baseless claims and alleged Larry Kudlow had “used ethnic slurs and made sexually inappropriate comments about women in front of multiple staff members”?
Yes, I know it worked for Newsome's ex-biatch Kimberley Guilfoyle.


RayR Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
rfenst wrote:
Last week, this column addressed state nullification and secession under the U.S. Constitution. It argued, in effect, that when the government fails to protect fundamental liberties or actively assaults them — as it has done in the past 18 months under the guise of public health — the states and individuals can peacefully ignore the government and, if necessary, leave it. 18 months is enough time to have to leave this nation over... abortion working its ways through the courts to SCOTUS? Why are you so impatient?

The concept of states leaving the federal government has been dead and buried since the outcome of the War Between the States. Yet four years after the war, the Supreme Court recognized secession in an old Texas case and held that three-quarters of the states would need to consent for any one of them to leave. So leave. Oh, wait! You don't even live in Texas

Nullification posits that any state individually — through its legislature or highest court — can determine that an action of the federal government is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore it is nullified and may legally be ignored in that state. Both ideas were embraced by many who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they were defended forcefully by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. So what. You want to see your state leave the Union over the age-old issue of abortion?

Last week, the Supreme Court revived the concept of nullification...


Robert, you blow right by "nullification" and go right to secession. I know you can read and understand the difference...right?

Secession is the political right to self-determination, the remedy for unreconcilable differences as in the American Revolution and the Confederacy.

Napolitano explained nullification clear enough. You do believe that a state and its people have the right to be the final arbiters of whether a federal law or Supreme Court decision is constitutional or not?
It's been done many times throughout American history, either formally through state legislation or just telling the federal government, "No..shut up, we aren't going use our resources to enforce your dictates"




HockeyDad Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
A California technology public relations firm is offering to pay for its six Texas staff members to relocate in response to the state’s restrictive new abortion law.

Calling it an “evacuation program,” San Francisco-based Bospar said it will provide $10,000 to any staff member needing to relocate “to ensure they have control of their reproductive health.” Its Austin workforce of five women and one man makes up about one-tenth of the firm’s employees. Overall, women account for 78% of its employee base.
RayR Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
Bospar is a PR firm, totally wokie I see, their "values, being politely pushy, and focus on inclusiveness, diversity, and equality for all."
Those words naturally resound with every leftist crackpot.
bgz Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
If being woke is profitable, then why not wake up?
HockeyDad Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
bgz wrote:
If being woke is profitable, then why not wake up?


I heard there is one born every minute. (Prolly would have been two a minute but the Democrats abort the brown and black ones)
rfenst Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
RayR wrote:
Robert, you blow right by "nullification" and go right to secession. I know you can read and understand the difference...right?

Secession is the political right to self-determination, the remedy for unreconcilable differences as in the American Revolution and the Confederacy.

Napolitano explained nullification clear enough. You do believe that a state and its people have the right to be the final arbiters of whether a federal law or Supreme Court decision is constitutional or not? NO. SCOTUS IS THE FINAL ARBITOR.

It's been done many times throughout American history, either formally through state legislation or just telling the federal government, "No..shut up, we aren't going use our resources to enforce your dictates"

RayR Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
rfenst wrote:

Robert, you blow right by "nullification" and go right to secession. I know you can read and understand the difference...right?

Secession is the political right to self-determination, the remedy for unreconcilable differences as in the American Revolution and the Confederacy.

Napolitano explained nullification clear enough. You do believe that a state and its people have the right to be the final arbiters of whether a federal law or Supreme Court decision is constitutional or not? NO. SCOTUS IS THE FINAL ARBITOR.

It's been done many times throughout American history, either formally through state legislation or just telling the federal government, "No..shut up, we aren't going use our resources to enforce your dictates"


Then you sir are an advocate of Black-Robed Despotism. You believe the Supreme Court has authority over the Constitution.Shame on you

Is the Supreme Court the Ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

by Zach Garris, President of the Federalist Society at Wayne State University Law School

Quote:
Americans today consider the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. Politicians and voters alike will fight tooth and nail over legal questions facing the judicial system, even criticizing Supreme Court rulings when initially handed down. But give a Supreme Court decision enough time and Americans eventually acquiesce. The question becomes “settled.”

From the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in the 1960s to the recent forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 States, the Court’s decisions reign supreme.

However, the Supreme Court’s rulings do not enforce themselves. They carry weight because State officials and the people of the States submit to the Court, choosing to follow federal judges over State laws. This raises the question—why do we give the Supreme Court so much deference?

More...

https://defytyrants.com/is-the-supreme-court-the-ultimate-arbiter-of-the-constitution/



Whistlebritches Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
izonfire wrote:
I’m not advocating the butchering of a newborn.
I would wait until they grow up and prove themselves to be vile, putrid a$$holes.
It is then when I would perform the abortions retroactively…



OK I'm onboard,do they have to be related to you?If not I'm going to retro abort the 17 year old down the street that racks his pipes through the neighborhood at midnight...............I'm assuming to drown out his schitty music that rattles the windows.
frankj1 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Whistlebritches wrote:
OK I'm onboard,do they have to be related to you?If not I'm going to retro abort the 17 year old down the street that racks his pipes through the neighborhood at midnight...............I'm assuming to drown out his schitty music that rattles the windows.

do I hafta live in Texas to collect the 10 grand if I turn you in?
Whistlebritches Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
frankj1 wrote:
do I hafta live in Texas to collect the 10 grand if I turn you in?



Yes........so fuggetaboutit
bgz Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
HockeyDad wrote:
I heard there is one born every minute. (Prolly would have been two a minute but the Democrats abort the brown and black ones)


Evil f*ckun lizard people
RayR Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
bgz wrote:
Evil f*ckun lizard people


Damn right you are.🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123