Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

So you don’t know if parents should be notified or not? 

As a parent I would want to know but I can't imagine what that girl is going through either.  Maybe that girl doesn't want to have the child and she knows her parents would make her if they knew?  I don't know the right answer.  I see it from both sides and I don't think there is an easy answer.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

As a parent I would want to know but I can't imagine what that girl is going through either.  Maybe that girl doesn't want to have the child and she knows her parents would make her if they knew?  I don't know the right answer.  I see it from both sides and I don't think there is an easy answer.

Time to stop catering to the feelings of 14 year olds and step up as a parent.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Time to stop catering to the feelings of 14 year olds and step up as a parent.

It's not that simple.

[Baker Boy 1,703]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It's not that simple.

Would you want your 14-year-old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Would you want your 14-year-old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?

He's not sure. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

2 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Would you want your 14-year-old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?

No, but I trust that I would have a close enough relationship with my daughter that she would tell me on her own.  Parents who have good relationships with their kids don't have to worry about that as much.  I'm worried about the girls who do not have that relationship with their parents.  The girls who would rather try and abort the baby on their own or commit suicide over telling their parents.  Every situation is different.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

He's not sure. 

Not everything is life is black and white, there is far more gray area.  Try not to be so stubborn and see things from other perspectives.

[Baker Boy 1,703]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

No, but I trust that I would have a close enough relationship with my daughter that she would tell me on her own.  Parents who have good relationships with their kids don't have to worry about that as much.  I'm worried about the girls who do not have that relationship with their parents.  The girls who would rather try and abort the baby on their own or commit suicide over telling their parents.  Every situation is different.

Do you know that abortion has not been abolished?

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Do you know that abortion has not been abolished?

Of course, why?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

35 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

No, but I trust that I would have a close enough relationship with my daughter that she would tell me on her own.  Parents who have good relationships with their kids don't have to worry about that as much.  I'm worried about the girls who do not have that relationship with their parents.  The girls who would rather try and abort the baby on their own or commit suicide over telling their parents.  Every situation is different.

So if you dont have a good relationship with your teenager (because that never happens) then you’re SOL I guess. So the “good” parents don’t have to worry, just the “bad” ones. Jesus. Letting kids dictate now. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

So if you dont have a good relationship with your teenager (because that never happens) then you’re SOL I guess. So the “good” parents don’t have to worry, just the “bad” ones. Jesus. Letting kids dictate now. 

We're not talking about letting a kid decide if they can get a tattoo, we're talking about a girl giving birth.  It's her body and it's important to think about her as well.  I know you're against parents giving their kids hormone blockers but it seems you have no issue making a child give birth if they are pregnant.  I know they are not exactly the same but they both involve parents making decisions for kids and their bodies.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

We're not talking about letting a kid decide if they can get a tattoo, we're talking about a girl giving birth.  It's her body and it's important to think about her as well.  I know you're against parents giving their kids hormone blockers but it seems you have no issue making a child give birth if they are pregnant.  I know they are not exactly the same but they both involve parents making decisions for kids and their bodies.

 Now you’re making things up. I never said anything about forcing, this is about informing. If you can’t be honest then just cede the point. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 Now you’re making things up. I never said anything about forcing, this is about informing. If you can’t be honest then just cede the point. 

I asked if you wanted to force a 14 girl to give birth and you responded with another question.  I have not been dishonest at all.  There are going to be parents who force their child to give birth, are you ok with that?

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I asked if you wanted to force a 14 girl to give birth and you responded with another question.  I have not been dishonest at all.  There are going to be parents who force their child to give birth, are you ok with that?

Why do you keep saying "force"?

The kid decided to get pregnant. Time to live with your decisions in life. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I asked if you wanted to force a 14 girl to give birth and you responded with another question.  I have not been dishonest at all.  There are going to be parents who force their child to give birth, are you ok with that?

If you didn’t get an answer then why did you say I wanted to do that? Is it legal to force anyone to do that? 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

Why do you keep saying "force"?

The kid decided to get pregnant. Time to live with your decisions in life. 

If the kid decided to get pregnant then why would they want to abort it?

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

If you didn’t get an answer then why did you say I wanted to do that? 

You didn't seem to be against it since you didn't answer.  Wouldn't it have just avoided any confusion by answering the question first then going forward?

 

Let's say your best friend's 14 year old daughter gets pregnant.  She said she had sex with her boyfriend and he wore a condom but we all know they do not work 100% of the time.  The girl tells her dad what happened and that she wants to abort it right away while it's still early.  Your best friend doesn't believe in abortion and says she needs to have the baby and raise it.  Are you ok with that?  I don't think it's an easy question to answer.

Once again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong.  I think it's worth putting more thought towards the whole thing.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If the kid decided to get pregnant then why would they want to abort it?

 

Lazy focking approach to life.  Live and learn bltch.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If the kid decided to get pregnant then why would they want to abort it?

You didn't seem to be against it since you didn't answer.  Wouldn't it have just avoided any confusion by answering the question first then going forward?

 

Let's say your best friend's 14 year old daughter gets pregnant.  She said she had sex with her boyfriend and he wore a condom but we all know they do not work 100% of the time.  The girl tells her dad what happened and that she wants to abort it right away while it's still early.  Your best friend doesn't believe in abortion and says she needs to have the baby and raise it.  Are you ok with that?  I don't think it's an easy question to answer.

Once again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong.  I think it's worth putting more thought towards the whole thing.

Again, you have to go elsewhere. The subject is if parents should be informed. You don’t think they should be, mostly because they don’t have a “good” relationship with their teenager. Because of course only bad parents have a trying relationship with their teenagers. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Again, you have to go elsewhere. The subject is if parents should be informed. You don’t think they should be, mostly because they don’t have a “good” relationship with their teenager. Because of course only bad parents have a trying relationship with their teenagers. 

I gave a reason as to why they shouldn't be informed.  I did not say that is my stance on it. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I gave a reason as to why they shouldn't be informed.  I did not say that is my stance on it. 

It’s about a law. There are no carve outs. What’s your opinion about the law? 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s about a law. There are no carve outs. What’s your opinion about the law? 

If I had to make a choice on it right now, I would prefer the parents be involved.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

If I had to make a choice on it right now, I would prefer the parents be involved.

Well, it’s about Fockin time. 

[Reality 3,121]

There is virtually no scenario where an abortion should be performed on their minor child without the parent(s) knowing. I can't believe we have gotten to this point. 

People love creating these one-off scenarios out of thin air but, it's all bullshlt. The law should always be to contact the parents, the made up scenarios aren't any of your business, it is their parents business though.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

14 minutes ago, Reality said:

There is virtually no scenario where an abortion should be performed on their minor child without the parent(s) knowing. I can't believe we have gotten to this point. 

People love creating these one-off scenarios out of thin air but, it's all bullshlt. The law should always be to contact the parents, the made up scenarios aren't any of your business, it is their parents business though.

Liberals know no other way to make a point. They have to play the what if’s all day. Jus talkie they tried to make the point that condoms aren’t always easy to get. Yes they are. They are very easy to everywhere and for everyone in America. 

[MDC 7,490]

I can’t imagine a scenario where a dad would want his underaged daughter to carry a pregnancy she didn’t want to term.

Unless the kid was his or something.  

[TimHauck 2,906]

25 minutes ago, MDC said:

I can’t imagine a scenario where a dad would want his underaged daughter to carry a pregnancy she didn’t want to term.

Unless the kid was his or something.  

Because it’s murder!  (But technically I think the argument here is the parents should just be notified which I probably agree with.)

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

This thread is 37 pages long and I still don't understand what "SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED" means.  

[Baker Boy 1,703]

The left is attempting to create a generic, risk free, bubble wrapped society with cradle to grave entitlements; the challenge will be making it to the cradle.
 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,360]

9 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This thread is 37 pages long and I still don't understand what "SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED" means.  

The scotus whose underling leaked this information should be impeached 

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

The scotus whose underling leaked this information should be impeached 

I was hoping you were advocating that the entire Supreme Court be impeached, that would be more fun. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,360]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

I was hoping you were advocating that the entire Supreme Court be impeached, that would be more fun. 

I’m all for that and 10 year term limits 

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I’m all for that and 10 year term limits 

Really a different thread, but I like the suggestion of 18 year limits, staggered by 2 year intervals.  Every presidential term, president gets two nominations. 

Since we have justices who now serve longer than the average lifespan when the Constitution was enacted I think that lifetime thing needs to be adjusted.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,360]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Really a different thread, but I like the suggestion of 18 year limits, staggered by 2 year intervals.  Every presidential term, president gets two nominations. 

Since we have justices who now serve longer than the average lifespan when the Constitution was enacted I think that lifetime thing needs to be adjusted.

Explain more what you mean about the top. I would say 10 year term limits two max. And agree nobody should have any position for life. 
 

except your mom

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

18 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Explain more what you mean about the top. I would say 10 year term limits two max. And agree nobody should have any position for life. 
 

except your mom

I've read multiple reasons why the lifetime term is outdated. The main one being that because of random timing(who retires, who dies...), the court may not reflect the  will of the populace of the country. IE, since the judges are nominated by the President, one president might get multiple nominations, while another might not get any.  The proposal I've read is that since there are 9 justices, each would get one 18 year term.  It's staggered by 2 years, so Justice A is seated to the bench, then 2 years later, Justice B is seated, and so-on and so-on until you get to Justice I, 16 years later.  Then at the 18 year mark, Justice A's term ends, and he's replaced by Justice A2. As they are replaced every 2 years, every president gets to appoint 2 justices, which represents the will of the people who elected him/her(look how progressive I am by saying her).

As an aside, I think this is one that the Forefathers got wrong. If I was in charge in 1781, I would have made it that the court gets to nominate who they want for judges and then Congress  approves or vetos their nominations.  Ideally, the court nominates people they believe are best suited to upholding our Constitution and laws.  Today we've reached the extreme in partisanship when it comes to the court and it's the last place we should have partisanship.  

Of course this is purely a thought exercise, because I would bet you, me and our grand children will be dead long before there is any significant change to how the court works. Feel free to bump and rub in my face if I'm wrong. 

 

Also, if I could have...I would have impeached my Mom from her lifetime position as my Mom years ago.  

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,360]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've read multiple reasons why the lifetime term is outdated. The main one being that because of random timing(who retires, who dies...), the court may not reflect the  will of the populace of the country. IE, since the judges are nominated by the President, one president might get multiple nominations, while another might not get any.  The proposal I've read is that since there are 9 justices, each would get one 18 year term.  It's staggered by 2 years, so Justice A is seated to the bench, then 2 years later, Justice B is seated, and so-on and so-on until you get to Justice I, 16 years later.  Then at the 18 year mark, Justice A's term ends, and he's replaced by Justice A2. As they are replaced every 2 years, every president gets to appoint 2 justices, which represents the will of the people who elected him/her(look how progressive I am by saying her).

As an aside, I think this is one that the Forefathers got wrong. If I was in charge in 1781, I would have made it that the court gets to nominate who they want for judges and then Congress  approves or vetos their nominations.  Ideally, the court nominates people they believe are best suited to upholding our Constitution and laws.  Today we've reached the extreme in partisanship when it comes to the court and it's the last place we should have partisanship.  

Of course this is purely a thought exercise, because I would bet you, me and our grand children will be dead long before there is any significant change to how the court works. Feel free to bump and rub in my face if I'm wrong. 

 

Also, if I could have...I would have impeached my Mom from her lifetime position as my Mom years ago.  

 

gotcha sounds good to me

of course the supreme court in its creation wasn't really that significant, it wasn't til later on when it became an actual factor in the nation

while we are at it, I am all for the winner of the election being president and the runner up being VP, that would be amazing

 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

gotcha sounds good to me

of course the supreme court in its creation wasn't really that significant, it wasn't til later on when it became an actual factor in the nation

while we are at it, I am all for the winner of the election being president and the runner up being VP, that would be amazing

 

 

Yup, agreed it was not, until they made themselves significant with Madison vs Marbury and judicial review.  Crazy that the most important thing SCOTUS does, constitutional adjudication, is something that the Marshal court granted to themselves and isn't even in the Constitution. 

 

[jerryskids 6,827]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Really a different thread, but I like the suggestion of 18 year limits, staggered by 2 year intervals.  Every presidential term, president gets two nominations. 

Since we have justices who now serve longer than the average lifespan when the Constitution was enacted I think that lifetime thing needs to be adjusted.

I really, really like this idea.   

[Voltaire 5,317]

48 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've read multiple reasons why the lifetime term is outdated. The main one being that because of random timing(who retires, who dies...), the court may not reflect the  will of the populace of the country. IE, since the judges are nominated by the President, one president might get multiple nominations, while another might not get any.  The proposal I've read is that since there are 9 justices, each would get one 18 year term.  It's staggered by 2 years, so Justice A is seated to the bench, then 2 years later, Justice B is seated, and so-on and so-on until you get to Justice I, 16 years later.  Then at the 18 year mark, Justice A's term ends, and he's replaced by Justice A2. As they are replaced every 2 years, every president gets to appoint 2 justices, which represents the will of the people who elected him/her(look how progressive I am by saying her).

As an aside, I think this is one that the Forefathers got wrong. If I was in charge in 1781, I would have made it that the court gets to nominate who they want for judges and then Congress  approves or vetos their nominations.  Ideally, the court nominates people they believe are best suited to upholding our Constitution and laws.  Today we've reached the extreme in partisanship when it comes to the court and it's the last place we should have partisanship.  

Of course this is purely a thought exercise, because I would bet you, me and our grand children will be dead long before there is any significant change to how the court works. Feel free to bump and rub in my face if I'm wrong. 

 

Also, if I could have...I would have impeached my Mom from her lifetime position as my Mom years ago.  

 

In theory, this really is the best and fairest way. In reality, the one singular place with any power where the good guys are in charge, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep it the way it is now.

[iam90sbaby 2,621]

Officially overturned. Eat sh!t libtards.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Officially overturned. Eat sh!t libtards.

If you are pro life, load your weapons. 

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion.