I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
Now do the world a very great favor and blow it out either of your ears, won't you?
toldailytopic: Raising Cain. What do you make of Cain's sexual harassment charges
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
Now do the world a very great favor and blow it out either of your ears, won't you?
some other dude
New member
Ah, I see you've chosen B. :chuckle:
Unsurprising.
Unsurprising.
Judicial precedent?some other dude said:
:idunno: I think it comes down to whether or not you are a single-issue voter and your issue is abortion.
Yes, there's a difference. How significant of a difference though? Even when we've had pro-life Presidents, how much have they gotten done? :idunno:
some other dude
New member
Of course. And the precedent immediately prior to Roe v Wade was that of what? What was Roe v Wade notable for overturning?
Hard to say. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a pro-abort in place of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George the first and George the second would have led to a much greater social acceptance of abortion?
To come back to my previous - McCain would not have pushed to provide government funding for abortions, as Obama is.
Bush the first would not have pushed the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act,” (a bill to prohibit states from limiting abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned), as Clinton did.
Breathe
New member
Dude. You are one of my three friends.
lain:
some other dude
New member
Breathe - you're two of my five friends.
Cite the S. Ct. decision that Roe overturned. That's what high court precedent and stare decisis are all about. You're confusing/conflating disparate state codifications and lower holdings.
some other dude
New member
Town, do us all a favor and take it elsewhere. You have no interest in discussing this honestly and I have no interest in engaging you.
Do everybody a favor and go elsewhere, okay?
Do everybody a favor and go elsewhere, okay?
What SCOTUS decision(s) did RvW overturn?
:idunno: Maybe. It's hard to say.
Abortions peaked in 1990 and have been steadily declining since then. What do you think is behind that?
I haven't denied that there are differences between presidents.
How has he not discussed this honestly? I think he has had some good input.
I think you are the only one who would think TH leaving is a favor.
some other dude
New member
What SCOTUS decisions do any of their cases overturn?
kmo - he's not here to discuss this honestly. He's here to bludgeon anybody who disagrees with him. I could quote you reams of stuff from Reagan, Clinton, Scalia and other Supreme Court Justices, Laurence Tribe and other legal scholars that show he is wrong, and he would never admit it. Why should I waste my time on him? :idunno:
:idunno: I'm not familiar enough with the history of the Supreme Court to know. But you may have just strengthened the point that the SCOTUS won't overturn RvW because the Supreme Court doesn't overturn their past decisions. :idea:
I think all evidence points to the opposite. How has he been dishonest? How has he bludgeoned anyone? I think you like playing the victim. Sometimes you have a case. Other times you don't. Here, you don't.
If you think it would be a waste of time with him, why not post the reams of stuff for the benefit of other people who are reading?
some other dude
New member
I may, later tonight.
Until then, consider this: if Town is right and a SCOTUS overturn of Roe v Wade is unlikely, why have Presidents and Supreme Court justices been so concerned about it?
This took me twenty seconds to find:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees the overturn of Roe v Wade as possible.
Some anonymous poster on the internet who claims to have been a lawyer says it's not.
Who ya gonna believe? :idunno:
He won't answer you because he either doesn't know or does and realizes that, as per my response, he's not being straight with you. Roe established precedent in the face of disparate treatments by differing codified jurisdictions, as per my last on it. It didn't overturn precedent.
Also, that anyone with an interest would hope to see Roe overturned, Justice or President, isn't the point. That stare decisis isn't law isn't being questioned either. But I've set out the Court's holding and discussion of that term of art and the likelihood of Roe's now substantive precedent being moved by that or subsequent Courts.
Given an amendment is a difficult process and I oppose abortion I'd love for there to be a realistic and easier path to its abolition, but there just isn't. Now a great many people use the judiciary angle, on either side, to marshal and maintain a political faction and focus. And given anything is potentially, no matter how marginally, possible, an honest statement made against likelihood can be a great crowd pleaser.
Scalia's opinion, not offered in a judicial setting, runs contrary to the historical Court's practice and the larger learned opinion, even from many a pro life legal camp.
As to Sod's sorry "claims to be a lawyer" nonsense, I've set out my credentials for AMR and he can verify them for you if you're troubled on that point.
:e4e:
some other dude
New member
Town, a greater legal authority than Antonin Scalia. :chuckle:
:mock:the self-important lawyer
some other dude
New member
kmo - do you see now why I won't bother to do anything other than mock him?
I give the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice that the reversal of Roe v Wade is possible.
But Town knows better, because he took some legal secretary courses at the local community college in between wood shop and remedial math.
What a joke.
I give the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice that the reversal of Roe v Wade is possible.
But Town knows better, because he took some legal secretary courses at the local community college in between wood shop and remedial math.
What a joke.
Scalia wasn't, as I noted, in a judicial setting nor rendering a legal opinion, only the personal sort indefinite enough for his purpose.
And I quoted another Justice with comparable credentials in an actual S. Ct. opinion that matters.
Well, at least I've gotten you off the "claims to be" nonsense.
That's progress. Else:
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
Mind your ears.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You "mock" him because when presented with salient counters you've nothing else to deliver. Town and I are diametrically opposed on certain issues but his credentials as an honest and mature poster on this site are not in doubt. You OTOH resort to childish name calling at any given opportunity which usually equates to a lack of an actual argument...
Bring on the "tardly" crap....
lain:
WizardofOz
New member
I see what you've done there
I see what you've done there
You assert that TH claims an overturn is unlikely
Scalia also asserts that an overturn is unlikely
Now the adjective turns to possible rather than likely.
All in one post you've taken your assertion of TH's position from what is likely to implying he claims it isn't possible.
Scalia said "maybe not never, but certainly not yet." How does that conflict with TH's position?
I see what you've done there
You assert that TH claims an overturn is unlikely
| Justice Antonin Scalia, one of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, told a group attending a fireside discussion that he sees it unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be reversed now, but has hopes that it may be down the road. |
Scalia also asserts that an overturn is unlikely
Now the adjective turns to possible rather than likely.
All in one post you've taken your assertion of TH's position from what is likely to implying he claims it isn't possible.
Scalia said "maybe not never, but certainly not yet." How does that conflict with TH's position?
some other dude
New member
I can't imagine anything more tardly than this artie:
Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"
Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"
Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"
Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I can well believe it. Your imagination matches your honesty and 'wit'. Best of luck with an improvement on all....
:e4e: