Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 58 of 105 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast
Results 856 to 870 of 1570
  1. #856
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    1. But those consequences are several steps from the performing of abortions. Not that it's reasonable, just that it's an argument.

    2. You can be sued while exercising other protected rights too. It's just going to be an interesting argument.
    If it's not a reasonable argument, then why even waste time with it? The death penalty is several steps removed from shooting someone in the head, but it's still the end result.

    You can be sued =/= it being illegal. You can sue for anything, but this is a law turning random people in bounty hunters. In order to win a civil suit you need to show that you were wronged, and that you incurred damages as a result of that wrong; neither of those things exist here. They're simply been created out of whole cloth to prevent people from exercising their rights.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  2. #857
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Yea Iím not surprised they voted against his petulant attempts to retain power. But the Federalist Society is in favor of eliminating abortion. That is one of their planks.
    It is? https://fedsoc.org/about-us#FAQ

    I know there are a lot of pro-life people in the Federalist Society, but I didn't know it was a fundamental part of their platform.

    I think the opposite is true of the American Constitution Society though.

  3. #858
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I'd love to hear how it would not be overturning Roe.
    Not acting on it in Texas is just not acting on it. It does not overturn Roe. It certainly has a very severe impact on abortion availability in Texas, but I would bet pretty big that that would have no bearing on the availability of abortions in California.

  4. #859
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    If it's not a reasonable argument, then why even waste time with it? The death penalty is several steps removed from shooting someone in the head, but it's still the end result.

    You can be sued =/= it being illegal. You can sue for anything, but this is a law turning random people in bounty hunters. In order to win a civil suit you need to show that you were wronged, and that you incurred damages as a result of that wrong; neither of those things exist here. They're simply been created out of whole cloth to prevent people from exercising their rights.
    Because, if it goes in front of the court that argument may well have to be made.

  5. #860
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Not acting on it in Texas is just not acting on it. It does not overturn Roe. It certainly has a very severe impact on abortion availability in Texas, but I would bet pretty big that that would have no bearing on the availability of abortions in California.
    It ends abortion in Texas. There is no reason to act like it does anything else.

    And if we were talking about guns, not only would mediocre white guys be whining about tyranny, but Republicans across the country would be queuing up to sue in order to stop it from happening. A right is not a right if you cannot exercise it.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  6. #861
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Are you under the impression that upholding the Texas law (or not taking the case) is the same as overturning Roe v Wade?

    Right now I don't think the court is going to overturn Roe v Wade.
    No Iím not (and that you even think that was my point shows a decided lack of intellectual effort on your part here).

    Iím under the impression that them declining to grant the injunction is another sign in a very long list that them overturning Roe v. Wade is a possibility.

    I get you donít think theyíre going to, but thatís not the same as believing it has a 0% chance. Are you saying with 100% certainty theyíre not going to overturn Roe? More importantly, can you at least see why people would be wary of the possibility given the warning signs and makeup of the court?

  7. #862
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Do you only talk about things you agree with and support?

    For instance, can you say anything positive and supporting of any team in the NFL that is not the 49ers? Can you talk about the aspects of a play called by a coach on an opposing team without supporting the team?
    Certainly not, but that is not is what is happening. I donít only defend things I disagree with or donít support. You do. Itís gotten so bad you donít even realize youíre doing it.

    To use your example, imagine if I said I was a 49er fan and then only ever criticized them and argued against them and then when confronted responded ďdo you only talk about things you support?Ē Most people would rightly conclude Iím not nearly as big a 49er fan as I claim if all I ever do is criticize themÖ

  8. #863
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Not acting on it in Texas is just not acting on it. It does not overturn Roe. It certainly has a very severe impact on abortion availability in Texas, but I would bet pretty big that that would have no bearing on the availability of abortions in California.
    Thatís putting it mildly. Let me ask you: if someone enacts a law that effectively prohibits your exercise of a constitutional right but doesnít explicitly do so, do you still have that constitutional right if you cannot exercise it?

  9. #864
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,278
    The same people that brought us this law argued in an amicus brief on a Mississippi law SCOTUS is looking at that could overturn Roe that the same legal framework Texas is using to stop people from exercising their right to an abortion could also be used to stop both gay marriage and gay sex.

    "In the same brief, which calls for Roe to be overturned, Mitchell and co-counsel Adam Mortara, an anti-abortion activist and lawyer who clerked for the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, said such a decision could open the door for other ďlawlessĒ rights and protections to be reversed, including the right to have gay sex and the right to same-sex marriage.

    The lawyers argued that while it was not necessary for the high court to immediately overrule the legal cases that enshrine those rights, ďneither should the court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a threadĒ.

    Those cases (Lawrence, which outlawed criminal sanctions against people who engaged in gay sex, and Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage) were ďfar less hazardous to human lifeĒ, they said, but just ďas lawless as RoeĒ."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...me-court-brief

  10. #865
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It is? https://fedsoc.org/about-us#FAQ

    I know there are a lot of pro-life people in the Federalist Society, but I didn't know it was a fundamental part of their platform.

    I think the opposite is true of the American Constitution Society though.
    Is today completely disingenuous day? Because it really seems like it is based on this statement. So if something isn't on their "About Us" page, they don't believe it? Does the Catholic Church not continually employee known pedophiles? It's not on their "About Us" page. What about Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, are they sexual predators? It's not on their professional "About Us" pages...
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  11. #866
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No Iím not (and that you even think that was my point shows a decided lack of intellectual effort on your part here).

    Iím under the impression that them declining to grant the injunction is another sign in a very long list that them overturning Roe v. Wade is a possibility.

    I get you donít think theyíre going to, but thatís not the same as believing it has a 0% chance. Are you saying with 100% certainty theyíre not going to overturn Roe? More importantly, can you at least see why people would be wary of the possibility given the warning signs and makeup of the court?
    No. Yes.

  12. #867
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Certainly not, but that is not is what is happening. I donít only defend things I disagree with or donít support. You do. Itís gotten so bad you donít even realize youíre doing it.

    To use your example, imagine if I said I was a 49er fan and then only ever criticized them and argued against them and then when confronted responded ďdo you only talk about things you support?Ē Most people would rightly conclude Iím not nearly as big a 49er fan as I claim if all I ever do is criticize themÖ
    Nah.

  13. #868
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Thatís putting it mildly. Let me ask you: if someone enacts a law that effectively prohibits your exercise of a constitutional right but doesnít explicitly do so, do you still have that constitutional right if you cannot exercise it?
    No.

  14. #869
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,258
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Is today completely disingenuous day? Because it really seems like it is based on this statement. So if something isn't on their "About Us" page, they don't believe it? Does the Catholic Church not continually employee known pedophiles? It's not on their "About Us" page. What about Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, are they sexual predators? It's not on their professional "About Us" pages...
    You said it was a plank issue for them. A plank is literally a declared position. If they are not openly declaring it it's not a plank.

  15. #870
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You said it was a plank issue for them. A plank is literally a declared position. If they are not openly declaring it it's not a plank.
    Do you really think they only do what is listed there? Come on. I know youíre not this foolish, so I canít think of anything other than disingenuous thinking.

Page 58 of 105 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •