• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brett Kavanaugh Just Declared War on Roe v. Wade

Rogue Valley said:
Brett Kavanaugh Just Declared War on Roe v. Wade

90




Despite his dishonest protestations at his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh exactly where I thought the douche-bag would be regarding abortion.
Click to expand...

So fitting that such a hater and a person so disrespecting of women will be one of the ones responsible for enslaving them to carrying unwanted children to term. He's a misogynistic, entitled rich kid who will never know the horror of carrying a rapists' child to term. What a ****ing bastard!
 
Lursa said:
No kidding?

I was pointing out a parallel.
Click to expand...

No you were deflecting to avoid facts.
why you people can never address the actual argument and what is being discussed is beyond me.
it only proves that you can't actually argue the topic.
 
JMR said:
And yet chief justice Roberts, a conservative jurist, disagrees with his and your opinion.
Click to expand...

that doesn't make him right now does it?
the Chief Justice has had some really bad rulings before.

AKA Obamacare was his biggest blunder and given the chance to correct his mistake he didn't take that opportunity.
I have seen the same court throw out a case as there was no victim and that the court could not rule on if a future
event was going to happen.

i have seen them throw out cases because the law itself had not taken effect yet.
so the SCOTUS throws out past precedent while at least 4 of the judges get it right.
 
MovingPictures said:
Nobody should be.

Just like Connor, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Gorsuch before him, Kavanaugh lied through his teeth about his intentions to enforce precedents he disagrees with.

IMHO, there should be a price to pay for this by the right. There's a weapon Dems can use, but I don't believe they have the balls for it.
Click to expand...

you realize that this was a ruling on a stay right? the actual case is still pending in federal court and roberts was following precendent over the past 20 years.
did you actually read his opinion or just the bs lies from slate?
 
This case was settled 3 years ago. It seems Kavvy has had too many beers and forgot; he claimed to respect stare decisis; as expected, he does not.

Roberts, you need to reign in your court; or you will be held accountable for it.
 
ludin said:
that doesn't make him right now does it?
the Chief Justice has had some really bad rulings before.

AKA Obamacare was his biggest blunder and given the chance to correct his mistake he didn't take that opportunity.
I have seen the same court throw out a case as there was no victim and that the court could not rule on if a future
event was going to happen.

i have seen them throw out cases because the law itself had not taken effect yet.
so the SCOTUS throws out past precedent while at least 4 of the judges get it right.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, he is right. You see it differently obviously. That does not make him wrong.
 
it was clearly established that he was a drunken frat-boy sexual molester so why would anyone be surprised at the lying little ****er?
 
JMR said:
In my opinion, he is right. You see it differently obviously. That does not make him wrong.
Click to expand...

sure it does based on law.

which is usually if there is no victim then there is no case. that is the standard rule that applies.
 
JMR said:
How was there no victim in Louisiana?
Click to expand...

The law has not been implemented yet. so there is no victim.
also there is already a 45 day wait period after the law went into effect.

those 3 or 4 doctors could have applied for admittance privs then.

even kavanaugh stated in his opinion if they could not get admittance privs then it would run afoul of the law.
you didn't read his opinion. In Kavanugh's opinion it is not up to the court to predict if there is a victim if
there isn't one.

not reading is why the OP article is a complete crap bag of lies and fake news.
again this was just a ruling on a stay motion not on the actual bill itself.
 
Scrabaholic said:
They are supposed to rule according to law, not according to their personal beliefs on abortion (or any other issue).
Click to expand...


........aaaand they're not.

Supreme Injustice

.....The five very conservative justices who served on the court from 2000 to 2013 – including four still on the bench, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist – “voted the conservative line in these 20 cases 98.5 percent of the time,” Stone found. The six moderate liberals – including four still on the court, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, along with former justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter – “voted for the ‘liberal’ policy position 97.5 percent of the time.” Altogether, these liberal and conservative justices took a total of 148 stands and in 145, their positions “tracked the presumed policy preferences of conservative and liberal legislators. Put simply, they voted in what seems to have been an ideologically result-oriented manner 98 percent of the time.”....
 
Dutch said:
........aaaand they're not.

Supreme Injustice

.....The five very conservative justices who served on the court from 2000 to 2013 – including four still on the bench, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist – “voted the conservative line in these 20 cases 98.5 percent of the time,” Stone found. The six moderate liberals – including four still on the court, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, along with former justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter – “voted for the ‘liberal’ policy position 97.5 percent of the time.” Altogether, these liberal and conservative justices took a total of 148 stands and in 145, their positions “tracked the presumed policy preferences of conservative and liberal legislators. Put simply, they voted in what seems to have been an ideologically result-oriented manner 98 percent of the time.”....
Click to expand...

Opinion piece. And please look up the phrase "supposed to".
 
Scrabaholic said:
Opinion piece. And please look up the phrase "supposed to".
Click to expand...

That would be an opinion piece with statistics. Look, you're not required to agree with this author or myself. However, by virtually any measurement the Judiciary of this country is hopelessly ideological.
 
Dutch said:
That would be an opinion piece with statistics. Look, you're not required to agree with this author or myself. However, by virtually any measurement the Judiciary of this country is hopelessly ideological.
Click to expand...

Statistics can't tell you if someone voted because of persona opinion or not. Unless they are directly asked. smh
 
Scrabaholic said:
Statistics can't tell you if someone voted because of persona opinion or not. Unless they are directly asked. smh
Click to expand...

Statistics can tell you if they voted within a given ideological perspective. Why they choose a collectivist ideology over a traditional one is immaterial.
 
Dutch said:
Statistics can tell you if they voted within a given ideological perspective. Why they choose a collectivist ideology over a traditional one is immaterial.
Click to expand...

No, it is not immaterial. They are *supposed to* vote according to law/interpretation of constitution. smh
 
Scrabaholic said:
No, it is not immaterial. They are *supposed to* vote according to law/interpretation of constitution. smh
Click to expand...

Too bad they don’t do what they are “supposed to then.” Too bad about losing the republic. It was a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom