Trump's SCOTUS

[Martin Hash]

I'll try one more time in lawyer speak:

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

This is de facto evidence that The Law places liberty above life. It would be cited in any other cases that pass through the judicial system and virtually all courts would dismiss based just on this precedence, and even if there was a conflicting finding from a Conservative Deep South District Court somewhere, it would get appealed & overturned, probably without review.

My opinion has nothing to do with any of it.

[StCapps]

I'll try one more time in lawyer speak:

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

This is de facto evidence that The Law places liberty above life. It would be cited in any other cases that pass through the judicial system and virtually all courts would dismiss based just on this precedence, and even if there was a conflicting finding from a Conservative Deep South District Court somewhere, it would get appealed & overturned, probably without review.

My opinion has nothing to do with any of it.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. That is not de facto proof of shit. Life coming before Liberty doesn't mean that there cannot be a single legal exception, so you have proved nothing because you insist on arguing against a strawman.

[Martin Hash]

Looking to the possible future of the SCOTUS.

Trump could potentially fill 5 spots on the SCOTUS merely based on age. Most Justices retire/die by 80. Scalia was 79

Red Ruth Ginsburg 85
Anthony Kennedy 82
Stephen Breyer 81
Clarence Thomas 71

Few Presidents get the opportunity to shape the court and America Law this way, and when they do, it leaves a legacy. Presidents like Washington, Lincoln and FDR got this opportunity. People for or against a Trump America need to understand a very real Legacy that impacts the US for decades could easily be made in this way.

A Trump appointment would get rid of the hateful Ginsburg, and replace her with someone more liberty-minded. (I went to hear her speak at the U of Idaho Law School while I was teaching CompSci there.)
Kennedy & Breyer would probably be replaced with people like themselves.
Get rid of the imbecile Thomas, and replace him with someone smarter.

p.s. Scalia spoke at my Law School & I went... Didn't like him.

[Martin Hash]

I'll try one more time in lawyer speak:

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

This is de facto evidence that The Law places liberty above life. It would be cited in any other cases that pass through the judicial system and virtually all courts would dismiss based just on this precedence, and even if there was a conflicting finding from a Conservative Deep South District Court somewhere, it would get appealed & overturned, probably without review.

My opinion has nothing to do with any of it.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. That is not de facto proof of shit.

Like I said, dude, take it to Court and find out.

[StCapps]

Like I said, dude, take it to Court and find out.

Abortion has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The reason Roe v Wade is law of the land has nothing to do with Liberty > Life when the two conflict in American law, and the court wouldn't rule that to be the case if I did take it court. So your point is moot.

[Martin Hash]

Like I said, dude, take it to Court and find out.

Abortion has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The reason Roe v Wade is law of the land has nothing to do with Liberty always trumping Life when the two conflict in American law, and the court wouldn't rule that to be the case if I did take it court.

Blah, blah, blah.

[StCapps]

Like I said, dude, take it to Court and find out.

Abortion has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The reason Roe v Wade is law of the land has nothing to do with Liberty always trumping Life when the two conflict in American law, and the court wouldn't rule that to be the case if I did take it court.

Blah, blah, blah.

Take it to court isn't an argument either dude, this is a pitiful showing on your part, truly.

[Martin Hash]

I'll throw you bone for hanging in there.

Currently, in abortion, The Courts weasel around what the definition of "life" is because The Law collides with mysticism, and a large majority of Americans are indoctrinated by religion about the value of life, including members of The Court. That cognitive dissonance causes a lot of distortion of the clear liberty-over-life Constitutional foundation. The Founders had similar philosophical conflicts: when liberty was postulated during The Enlightenment, no one really could think it through to its logical conclusion, which is what we are experiencing today. And what StA doesn't like, and why he's a Reactionary against liberty. You, a foreigner, never had American liberty in the first place, so all your preconceptions about what it means are socialist leaning.

[Okeefenokee]

I'll try one more time in lawyer speak:

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

This is de facto evidence that The Law places liberty above life. It would be cited in any other cases that pass through the judicial system and virtually all courts would dismiss based just on this precedence, and even if there was a conflicting finding from a Conservative Deep South District Court somewhere, it would get appealed & overturned, probably without review.

My opinion has nothing to do with any of it.

That opinion gives no mention to the life or liberty of the child. Strange that.

[Okeefenokee]

I'll throw you bone for hanging in there.

Currently, in abortion, The Courts weasel around what the definition of "life" is because The Law collides with mysticism, and a large majority of Americans are indoctrinated by religion about the value of life, including members of The Court. That cognitive dissonance causes a lot of distortion of the clear liberty-over-life Constitutional foundation. The Founders had similar philosophical conflicts: when liberty was postulated during The Enlightenment, no one really could think it through to its logical conclusion, which is what we are experiencing today. And what StA doesn't like, and why he's a Reactionary against liberty. You, a foreigner, never had American liberty in the first place, so all your preconceptions about what it means are socialist leaning.

The chairman is showing his colors.

We don't cotton to any of that mystic life nonsense up in here. Life gets in the way of important stuff like genocide.