Tennessee passes heartbeat bill, bans abortions for babies with Down syndrome

#154
#154
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#155
#155
Wafflestomper said:
These just seem like scathing criticisms of the decision in Roe v. Wade. I was curious why the supreme court would be willing to hear yet another abortion case. Don't they typically require some unique aspect that has not previously been evaluated?
Click to expand...

The links are from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I’m not sure they are an objective source of academic legal analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#156
#156
rjd970 said:
The links are from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I’m not sure they are an objective source of academic legal analysis.
Click to expand...

Yes, they read like more a polemic than a legal analysis. Regardless, I'm willing to consider the argument(s) but they seem similar to the original dissent in Roe v. Wade to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#157
#157
volfanjustin said:
The state level is where these things should get decided but this is headed for the SC where John Roberts will be the deciding vote to shoot this down.
Click to expand...

This law was enacted at the state level. The problem with this law is its unconstitutionality. If the TN Legislature would stop creating stupid laws, then SOCTUS would not have to slap them down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#158
#158
Purple Tiger said:
This law was enacted at the state level. The problem with this law is its unconstitutionality. If the TN Legislature would stop creating stupid laws, then SOCTUS would not have to slap them down.
Click to expand...
Each state should be able to decide these things. The liberals on the SC feel they are there to make laws, the 5 libs should run for office since they enjoy making laws instead of interrupting the Constitution
 
#159
#159
volfanjustin said:
Each state should be able to decide these things. The liberals on the SC feel they are there to make laws, the 5 libs should run for office since they enjoy making laws instead of interrupting the Constitution
Click to expand...

I think you meant interpreting - not interrupting - the Constitution.

If we had smarter legislators and decent advice from our AG, none of these cockamamie bills in the TN Legislature would ever see the light of day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Septic
#160
#160
Purple Tiger said:
I think you meant interpreting - not interrupting - the Constitution.

If we had smarter legislators and decent advice from our AG, none of these cockamamie bills in the TN Legislature would ever see the light of day.
Click to expand...
There isn't anything wrong with this bill, again these liberal justices need to run for office since they like making laws
 
#162
#162
Purple Tiger said:
This law was enacted at the state level. The problem with this law is its unconstitutionality. If the TN Legislature would stop creating stupid laws, then SOCTUS would not have to slap them down.
Click to expand...

But how else will they be able to pander prove to their constituency how 'conservative' they are?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Purple Tiger
#164
#164
volfanjustin said:
There isn't anything wrong with this bill, again these liberal justices need to run for office since they like making laws
Click to expand...

Remember how you guys laughed when trump got to install two SCOTUS justices to tip the balance in his favor? How you guys said 'if nothing else, this would be his legacy.'

How's that been working out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger and zeppelin128
#165
#165
Septic said:
Remember how you guys laughed when trump got to install two SCOTUS justices to tip the balance in his favor? How you guys said 'if nothing else, this would be his legacy.'

How's that been working out?
Click to expand...
Trump didn't put John Roberts on the bench. If he's re-elected he will get to replace at least 3 justices and maybe if John Roberts meets the stairs again it could be as many as 4
 
#167
#167
volfanjustin said:
Trump didn't put John Roberts on the bench. If he's re-elected he will get to replace at least 3 justices and maybe if John Roberts meets the stairs again it could be as many as 4
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

You're making excuses.

Roberts is one of nine and historically conservative - if you don't like the decisions, perhaps it's time to look at the legislation put before them instead of suggesting they're always wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#169
#169
Septic said:
Irrelevant.

You're making excuses.

Roberts is one of nine and historically conservative - if you don't like the decisions, perhaps it's time to look at the legislation put before them instead of suggesting they're always wrong.
Click to expand...
The states should have the right to have laws that fits their state, the 5 libs need to run for office since they enjoy making laws
 
#171
#171
volfanjustin said:
The states should have the right to have laws that fits their state, the 5 libs need to run for office since they enjoy making laws
Click to expand...

Deciding if laws are consistent and congruent with Constitution isn't 'making laws'.

The 10th Amendment accounts for and sets the stage for States rights, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that the 10th can't be invoked to usurp the 14th.

Nice try though.
 
#172
#172
Septic said:
Deciding if laws are consistent and congruent with Constitution isn't 'making laws'.

The 10th Amendment accounts for and sets the stage for States rights, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that the 10th can't be invoked to usurp the 14th.

Nice try though.
Click to expand...
4 for sure and sometimes 5 are activist judges and shouldn't be anywhere near the SC
 
#174
#174
More mouth breathing trump loving hypocrisy. Itll get struck down by SCOTUS. move along, nothing to see here.
 
#175
#175
Wafflestomper said:
These just seem like scathing criticisms of the decision in Roe v. Wade. I was curious why the supreme court would be willing to hear yet another abortion case. Don't they typically require some unique aspect that has not previously been evaluated?
Click to expand...
I think it simply requires the lower courts to rule and it keep working up the chain. The court can choose or refuse to consider.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top