|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 15, 2024 14:09:10 GMT -5
I didn’t say I agreed with you. I said the situation was interesting to me. What I found interesting was that the lower court’s decision was what it was and that the SC decision was what it was. It is the different interpretations of the same law that it demonstrates that I find interesting. It’s a good example of how what some people see as plain isn’t necessarily always as plain as they think it is. I didn't say you did, I said you appeared to, and went on to explain why. It's a good example of what some people see as plain isn't necessarily as plain as they think it is.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 15, 2024 14:45:36 GMT -5
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. Sounds like you’re saying that the different interpretations suggest that the issue isn’t really as plain as you first suggested. Pretty plain to nine Supreme Court Justices
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 15:31:10 GMT -5
That’s true Cad, but it shows that there are other viewpoints out there as well so maybe not so plain.
Thats the only reason why so many liberals are pissed at the makeup of the SCOTUS today. They know that their views have a minority representation in the court and the pendulum they’ve enjoyed for a long time has swung away from them on a number of issues.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 15:33:50 GMT -5
I didn’t say I agreed with you. I said the situation was interesting to me. What I found interesting was that the lower court’s decision was what it was and that the SC decision was what it was. It is the different interpretations of the same law that it demonstrates that I find interesting. It’s a good example of how what some people see as plain isn’t necessarily always as plain as they think it is. I didn't say you did, I said you appeared to, and went on to explain why. It's a good example of what some people see as plain isn't necessarily as plain as they think it is. And you got it wrong again. Thanks for playing, but I think your recess break is about over!🤪
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jun 15, 2024 15:49:42 GMT -5
That’s true Cad, but it shows that there are other viewpoints out there as well so maybe not so plain. Thats the only reason why so many liberals are pissed at the makeup of the SCOTUS today. They know that their views have a minority representation in the court and the pendulum they’ve enjoyed for a long time has swung away from them on a number of issues. Issue number one is reality. Are they members of the reality-based community? Or, are they superstitious creations of reactionary plutocrats still pissed about the New Deal? Believers in the "semi-Christian" official religion are useful tools to entrench the status quo. The "King James" version was pasted together from previous work. It was edited so that nothing would upset their divinely anointed monarch. In much the same way, the Supreme court patches together oddball legal notions. Then they feel free to toss aside decades of precedent, to benefit their benefactors. Not much difference.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 15, 2024 21:39:03 GMT -5
The FDA historically said that "Plan B" worked by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting. That's an abortion as a pro-life person would define it, where life begins at conception: In recent years, they changed the label to say that it "may" work that way. From the FDA Label: "Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun." www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/021045s016lbl.pdfwww.verywellhealth.com/how-plan-b-works-906842#:~:text=The%20FDA%20labeling%20for%20the,it%20works%20by%20preventing%20ovulation. So some research says the drug doesn't prevent implantation at all. Yet the FDA says it "may," and historically it was presumed that it "did" and that was the primary mechanism by how it worked. If it stops a fertilized egg from implanting, it's causing an abortion and places it in the same category as any other abortion or "morning after" pill. I would only accept that "Plan B" is not an abortion pill if it's completely conclusive it does not stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Just an FYI, about half of the fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus naturally. That is a lot of natural abortions according to how you classify one. My opinion would be the woman is not pregnant until the egg attaches and is capable of growing into a fetus. Using your definition, God kills between 60 million and 130 million babies a year. In a non-catastrophic-war-year, God kills about 61 million born humans. Every human that has ever been born and died has been killed by God through some direct or indirect means. Whether there’s a point a fertilized egg or fetus doesn’t yet have a soul, I cannot say. My definition of when life begins is objectively biological.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 15, 2024 21:47:00 GMT -5
I didn’t say I agreed with you. I said the situation was interesting to me. What I found interesting was that the lower court’s decision was what it was and that the SC decision was what it was. It is the different interpretations of the same law that it demonstrates that I find interesting. It’s a good example of how what some people see as plain isn’t necessarily always as plain as they think it is. The doo doo that Tarp stepped in is assuming the appellate Court overstepped its bounds without him having any idea what the legal issue was the Supreme Court was reversing. The 5th circuit didn’t do anything egregious. It simply had a different legal interpretation as to whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit. The issue is the equivalent of 2 sets of nuclear physicists debating the working of an equation. That the 3 liberals joined the conservatives for a unanimous verdict means nothing. They would be expected to vote in whatever way allowed more abortion. Nothing about the 3 sitting liberal justices tells me they have the intellectual heft to weigh out the complex issue of standing that the 5th circuit and the Supreme Court sorted out. The 3 probably viewed the issues as “abortion, YES!” Ginsberg was different than the 3 currently on the bench. She was a smart lady.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 16, 2024 9:22:17 GMT -5
That’s true Cad, but it shows that there are other viewpoints out there as well so maybe not so plain. Thats the only reason why so many liberals are pissed at the makeup of the SCOTUS today. They know that their views have a minority representation in the court and the pendulum they’ve enjoyed for a long time has swung away from them on a number of issues. Issue number one is reality. Are they members of the reality-based community? Or, are they superstitious creations of reactionary plutocrats still pissed about the New Deal? Believers in the "semi-Christian" official religion are useful tools to entrench the status quo. The "King James" version was pasted together from previous work. It was edited so that nothing would upset their divinely anointed monarch. In much the same way, the Supreme court patches together oddball legal notions. Then they feel free to toss aside decades of precedent, to benefit their benefactors. Not much difference. Or another way to frame it…… for those of us that actually care about the constitutionality of our laws (in reality, that’s a requirement in our form of government)….. would be to say that they fixed a long standing error.
|
|