|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 22:01:46 GMT -5
I know what the law was about. You libs apparently did not. Any pill you take that kills the fertilized egg is a "morning after" pill as far as I'm concerned. My points are still valid. You're basically arguing over whether I said its or it's. Irrelevant. Just figured a lawyer would have his facts straight on an”I just owned the libs” thread that you created. My facts are straight. For considering the act an abortion, I don't distinguish between a pill that stops the fertilized egg from implanting from a pill that makes the fertilized egg die or be rejected later. Unlike many of the Leftists here (and some of the Rightests too), I admit if I see I'm wrong. You all know this. I chose my words deliberately, thus the reason I said "morning after pill s". I consider all such pills as the same thing just working through different mechanisms. A "morning after" pill is as much an abortion and therefore a murder, as any other.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 14, 2024 0:21:18 GMT -5
More like you deliberately chose what are the exact wrong words and just refuse to admit it. Ironically, had you made the mistake conversely and called them abortion pills outright, you might have been able to weasel your way out of it, but alas, you just chose wrong. It's no big deal, really, we all make mistakes.
Just own it.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 14, 2024 5:32:49 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did.
I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial.
Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs.
Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy.
Just to clarify the difference between the two.
Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 14, 2024 6:58:01 GMT -5
That has never stopped the liberal judges from making decisions on that align with their political beliefs. Will the newest judge recuse herself if there is a case that relates to whether a transwoman is a woman when she couldnt define a woman?
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 14, 2024 7:02:45 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did. I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial. Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Just to clarify the difference between the two. Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality?
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Jun 14, 2024 7:27:23 GMT -5
There is no need to repeat yourself. I understood your point the first time you made it.
It's still bullshit, even with your use of the words "tend to" and "usually". For example, and in this very case, the original judge and the 5th circuit appeals court -- all Federalists or Federalist-led -- overstepped their bounds, and SCOTUS chose to step in -- by my count that's 2-1 and quite the opposite of "tend to" or "usually". Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?
Of course I’m a Federalist. What is it exactly you believe the 5th Circuit did that overstepped their bounds? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t ban the pill. They actually reversed the trial court’s ban of the pill. Don’t forget that tarponator and others think that we are a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Jun 14, 2024 7:31:56 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did. I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial. Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Just to clarify the difference between the two. Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. Actually there is nothing ambiguous about the “General Welfare” clause. You need to understand what that term implied. It had nothing to do with our definition of Welfare”.😉 It’s all in the Federalist Papers.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 14, 2024 8:09:02 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did. I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial. Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Just to clarify the difference between the two. Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. Actually there is nothing ambiguous about the “General Welfare” clause. You need to understand what that term implied. It had nothing to do with our definition of Welfare”.😉 It’s all in the Federalist Papers. You make the mistake of thinking all of the signers of the constitution all had the same opinion. The general welfare clause has been debated since the constitution was written. Alexander Hamilton, a federalist and one of the drafters of the constitution, argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” Madison and others had a different view in that the Clause authorizes spending only when it implements other powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. Hamilton and the Federalists believed "that the Clause authorized a wide range of spending for purposes that go beyond Congress’s other enumerated powers, so long as they were sufficiently general.” So your interpretation of the ambiguity of the clause is incorrect since even the people who drafted and signed it had different interpretations of what it meant. That argument has been going on ever since and that ambiguity has led to broader and broader use of the general welfare clause for many laws.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 14, 2024 8:20:03 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did. I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial. Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Just to clarify the difference between the two. Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? He was a Trump appointed judge and conservative, I guess he could have let his personal feelings of abortion influence his opinion. The appeals court, also conservative judges, felt the plaintiffs had standing as well. So maybe they let their personal feelings of abortion cloud their judgement as well. But Bullfrog says conservatives do not do that. I would simply say their interpretation of Article III was different than SCOTUS and the main reason we have the high court and multiple experienced judges to try and be sure one judge does not accidently make a wrong interpretation based on his personal interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Jun 14, 2024 9:49:32 GMT -5
SCOTUS just struck down the federal ban on bump stocks.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 14, 2024 10:55:38 GMT -5
SCOTUS just struck down the federal ban on bump stocks. Good it was stupid to begin with. Sorry for your tears....
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Jun 14, 2024 12:41:55 GMT -5
Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? He was a Trump appointed judge and conservative, I guess he could have let his personal feelings of abortion influence his opinion. The appeals court, also conservative judges, felt the plaintiffs had standing as well. So maybe they let their personal feelings of abortion cloud their judgement as well. But Bullfrog says conservatives do not do that. I would simply say their interpretation of Article III was different than SCOTUS and the main reason we have the high court and multiple experienced judges to try and be sure one judge does not accidently make a wrong interpretation based on his personal interpretation. took a little while but you finally got trump in there, good job.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 14, 2024 13:53:49 GMT -5
I do not see the decision as being liberal or conservative since the court decided the plaintiffs had no standing in the case. I think, even the most liberal judges would have decided the same result no matter the issue. The court did not consider the moral implications of the pill or their feeling toward abortion, but simply Article III of the constitution, did the plaintiffs have standing to sue. it was obvious they did not, so the appeals court was wrong to say the plaintiffs did. I did appreciate that the court said the proper venimplying ue for the plaintiffs was through the administrative or legislative bodies of the constitution and not the judicial. Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Just to clarify the difference between the two. Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? Close. More like an activist, Federalist judge followed by an activist-led, Federalist-led 5th Circuit court of appeals didn't consider constitutionality.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the opening post in this thread, which was made by a fellow Federalist.
Interesting, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 14, 2024 13:54:38 GMT -5
Of course I’m a Federalist. What is it exactly you believe the 5th Circuit did that overstepped their bounds? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t ban the pill. They actually reversed the trial court’s ban of the pill. Don’t forget that tarponator and others think that we are a democracy. WTF are you babbling about?
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on Jun 14, 2024 14:04:27 GMT -5
|
|