User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:48:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:50:34 AM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:53:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The liberal obsession with the right to commit infanticide is truly sick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:56:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think so. The problem with Roe is that it took the states out of the picture. For the history of our country, abortion was regulated by the states. By conjuring up a "constitutional right" they took state legislatures out of the picture. The more removed the law-making, the less say we have in the matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 11:23:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone, including Ginsburg, knows RvW is bad law. the law is simply what 5 harvard judges say it is. Nothing else matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 11:25:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
nonsense. the law is simply what 5 harvard judges say it is. Nothing else matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everyone, including Ginsburg, knows RvW is bad law. the law is simply what 5 harvard judges say it is. Nothing else matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 11:28:21 AM EDT
[#7]
Anything that comes out of the SCOTUS is law.
it states clearly in the constitution that the SCOTUS shall create all law and that killing babies and gay marriage are constitutional rights. It says nothing about bearing arms, however. freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 5:09:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Anthony Kennedy just watched his former law clerk be sworn in to Court and his son is reportedly good friends with Donald Trump's son. He will be retiring during Trump's first term. I'm sure he disagrees with Trump on a number of issues, but it's likely his disagreements with a Dem president would be even greater. This is happening.
Furthermore, Ginsburg is 84 years old. Stephen Breyer is 78. The projected retirement age of justices is about 83 based on when justices have been retiring recently. The oldest-serving Justice EVER was Oliver Wendall Holmes who retired at 90. If Trump is re-elected, then Ginsburg will be 91 (pushing 92, March birthday) by the end of his 2nd term and Breyer will be 86. For Ginsburg to tough it out until the end of Trump's 2nd term, she would be the oldest SCOTUS justice EVER. Breyer at 86 would be among the 6 oldest SCOTUS justices ever. So there's a real possibility that Trump will be able to appoint 4 (FOUR) Supreme Court justices. If Trump is re-elected, it's almost guaranteed. That would bring the Court to a 7-2 conservative majority. Ginsburg fucked the liberal movement by not retiring before 2014. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 5:27:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Fingers crossed for Kennedy's retirement statement tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 5:34:17 PM EDT
[#10]
New science could be a valid change in circumstances. 3D sonograms have changed how many see pregnancy. They have also have elivates awareness of fetal pain
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 6:44:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a legal theory, it's not law. SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times in history. Abortion on demand is unlikely to remain legal in the US forever -- it probably has another ten years or so until it will wind up heavily restricted, and maybe 30 or 40 years from now people will look back on that era just like we look back at slavery today. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 6:53:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a legal theory, it's not law. SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times in history. Abortion on demand is unlikely to remain legal in the US forever -- it probably has another ten years or so until it will wind up heavily restricted, and maybe 30 or 40 years from now people will look back on that era just like we look back at slavery today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:03:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Likely true. A 7-2 conservative SCOTUS majority is very possible, and there's no way Roe v. Wade is surviving if that is the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:05:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ditto Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If he gets another bona fide conservative on the court, I am maxing out my donation to him for 2020. But the left is going to insist that Kennedy be replaced by a Kennedy-like justice, and they will grandstand and obstruct any other choice. I want another Scalia, but we have too many go-along-to-get along Republicans in the Senate. You know who they are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:46:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, 5-2 plus Roberts anyhow. You can't trust a man who thinks f-i-n-e spells tax. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Likely true. A 7-2 conservative SCOTUS majority is very possible, and there's no way Roe v. Wade is surviving if that is the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 7:47:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a legal theory, it's not law. SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times in history. Abortion on demand is unlikely to remain legal in the US forever -- it probably has another ten years or so until it will wind up heavily restricted, and maybe 30 or 40 years from now people will look back on that era just like we look back at slavery today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 8:05:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Double ditto. But the left is going to insist that Kennedy be replaced by a Kennedy-like justice, and they will grandstand and obstruct any other choice. I want another Scalia, but we have too many go-along-to-get along Republicans in the Senate. You know who they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 8:47:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My vote is to put a conservative up for nomination ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 8:49:42 PM EDT
[#19]
trey gowdy or mike lee to replace, please please please
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 8:59:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not how fear mongering works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't there have to be a case with some sort of legal standing be submitted to the court for there to even be a chance for Roe to be overturned? What legal standing could one use to bring such a case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:03:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm SO glad that the Democrats already forced the nuclear option into play.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:12:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Thank GOD that TRUMP was elected and not HRC like so many wished in GD
Suck it Democrats 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:14:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, no kidding, all the social conservatives causing Hillary to win the last election.....Oh wait Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. I'm happy if he replaces several justices but they don't need to be meddling with Roe V Wade.  Their response? "I don't care, I just want pussy w/o responsibility". I have no respect, no sympathy, and no patience for persons who think that murdering the unborn is acceptable once they know the scientific truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:16:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Party on Wayne...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:18:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not like she didn't win the popular vote. Homophobes, War on Drugs, and Anti abortionists cost a lot of votes that they don't need to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. I'm happy if he replaces several justices but they don't need to be meddling with Roe V Wade. Homophobes, War on Drugs, and Anti abortionists cost a lot of votes that they don't need to. You don't get to count illegals and dead people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 9:44:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Leftists certainly place the economic and material first and foremost; it is with good reason that conservatives do not. When it comes to free markets, their value is not principally economic for the conservative; their value is in the fact that you cannot have liberty without a free market. Socialism could be demonstrably better as an economic system (it's not, of course) and conservatives would still support the free market. Virtue is good in and of itself; when it comes to the state and society, it is also essential for the long-term preservation of liberty. You cannot have a good and liberal society without it, and sometimes this must be reflected in the laws, which either might involve action or passivity (such as, say, not redefining marriage in a wrongful and radical fashion). A non-virtuous society will not long be a free society, and the nature of the state is a major factor in all of that. When a country can make it so that it is legal to declare a class of people not people and make it legal to kill them on a whim, it cannot be said to be a country inclined towards liberty or towards anything right or just. Such a condition is dangerous for all, in the long run. Same with the gross disintegration of rule of law, represented by rulings like Roe v. Wade (among many others) which have no basis at all in the law. And if you think the court overturning Roe v. Wade is going to make Republicans totally unelectable for decades, you are massively overstating the public support for abortion (and most who do support abortion are not likely to vote Republican even if Republicans embraced legalized abortion). That's just not how it's going to go down. My understanding that support for legal abortion has been declining both in absolute terms and in terms of the enthusiasm for it. It's amazing how much we kow-tow to very vocal and radical minorities, treating them like they represent solid majorities or the bulk of society, even when they don't and on top of that are completely wrong in what they believe in and are promoting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. And if you think the court overturning Roe v. Wade is going to make Republicans totally unelectable for decades, you are massively overstating the public support for abortion (and most who do support abortion are not likely to vote Republican even if Republicans embraced legalized abortion). That's just not how it's going to go down. My understanding that support for legal abortion has been declining both in absolute terms and in terms of the enthusiasm for it. It's amazing how much we kow-tow to very vocal and radical minorities, treating them like they represent solid majorities or the bulk of society, even when they don't and on top of that are completely wrong in what they believe in and are promoting. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:40:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What genocide? Zygotes are not an ethnicity or nationality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your premise is false. And genocide is still wrong, even if you don't like the people being murdered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:55:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Life begins a conception according to every biology text book I've seen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your premise is false. And genocide is still wrong, even if you don't like the people being murdered. The central question that people disagree on is whether or not it is a person - which is a philosophical/moral question, not a biological one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2017 10:59:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The abortion debate has never been about whether or not the zygote/fetus/whatever is alive or not. The central question that people disagree on is whether or not it is a person - which is a philosophical/moral question, not a biological one. Stupid people believe that life begins at birth. There is no shortage of stupid people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 6:44:13 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't waste your pixels. I can't tell you how many Liberaltarians I've cited biology texts (that's science for those who didn't know) stating that life beings at conception. Their response? "I don't care, I just want pussy w/o responsibility". I have no respect, no sympathy, and no patience for persons who think that murdering the unborn is acceptable once they know the scientific truth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope we stack the court, but it better not touch abortion shit. I'd like to win another election in the next 50 years, but dumbfuck Social Conservatives, who define themselves solely on such social matters because economics and voting trends are hard, love to ruin everything. I'm happy if he replaces several justices but they don't need to be meddling with Roe V Wade. Their response? "I don't care, I just want pussy w/o responsibility". I have no respect, no sympathy, and no patience for persons who think that murdering the unborn is acceptable once they know the scientific truth. Geniuses keep pushing the line that Social Conservatives are the reason we are losing elections. However, reality does not reflect that. Republicans have the House, Senate, Presidency, 32 legislatures, 33 Governorship's, etc. but all of these religious hating conservatives, think we are losing all this because of those pesky social conservatives. Their hate of religious people is as bad if not worse than liberal dems hate of religious people, to the point where reality takes a back seat to their hate. I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 7:32:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression.
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 7:52:53 AM EDT
[#32]
It's Monday and never mind the market crash. Has Kennedy retired?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 7:57:15 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression.
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:01:59 AM EDT
[#34]
It's 8:01 on Monday morning. Is it happening yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:08:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's 8:01 on Monday morning. Is it happening yet? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:09:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression.
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:10:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My Mod and my Staff they comfort me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression.
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:11:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a Latin term which I can't remember but it basically means let the decision stand and it's a principle that the SCOTUS works under. Essentially it is intended to make sure that future SCOTUS sessions don't reverse standing decisions. The only way that Row v Wade could be imapacted--see that I didn't say reversed--would be for new cases to come along that chip away at the edges. But as I understand it, abortion will always be legal due to Roe v Wade. There will never be a time when abortions will be illegal in America again. That's how I remember constitutional law from college because we discussed this very case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't there have to be a case with some sort of legal standing be submitted to the court for there to even be a chance for Roe to be overturned? What legal standing could one use to bring such a case? Essentially it is intended to make sure that future SCOTUS sessions don't reverse standing decisions. The only way that Row v Wade could be imapacted--see that I didn't say reversed--would be for new cases to come along that chip away at the edges. But as I understand it, abortion will always be legal due to Roe v Wade. There will never be a time when abortions will be illegal in America again. That's how I remember constitutional law from college because we discussed this very case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:12:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Is he gone yet? The World Wonders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 8:13:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My Mod and my Staff they comfort me. And on ARF, peace to posters of good will We post to you, we troll you We amuse you, we argue We give you thanks for your great website... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 9:31:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am finding here on ARFCOM, that contrary to what some might think. It appears that Site staff does not want religious conservatives here. I admit I could be wrong. But a look at prominent staff and moderator postings. Sure seems to give that impression.
How would a "religious conservative" handle their Mod or Staff duties compared to one who is not? I said, it appears that site staff does not want religious conservatives here? I also admit I could be wrong. A prominent anti-theist mod in my opinion targets religious members and lets anti theist troll. I cannot prove it. Simply my opinion based on my observations. Also Based on things he said to me personally. On top of things observed on ARFCOM as a whole. Again, cannot prove it. Simply my observations. For that matter why did you put religious conservative in quotations? What was the purpose? Further more, why not address the bogus "social conservatives are costing us elections" nonsense? Oh never mind, maybe you agree with that sentiment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:32:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Court just adjourned, no mention of retirements today thus far. Will hear the travel ban case in October.
ETA: AP reporting the court will allow travel ban to take effect in many cases in the interim. ETA2: Scotusblog: "On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." "So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come." More commentary from Scotusblog: "But, the court says, the injunctions are much broader than that, and prohibit the ban from being enforced against people who have no connection to the United States, which is a different calculus. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national." "So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of Section 2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:40:51 AM EDT
[#43]
so no retirement? Ohhhh hell naw!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:41:32 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so no retirement? Ohhhh hell naw!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:43:37 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Court just adjourned, no mention of retirements today thus far. Will hear the travel ban case in October. ETA: AP reporting the court will allow travel ban to take effect in many cases in the interim. ETA2: Scotusblog: "On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." "So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come." More commentary from Scotusblog: "But, the court says, the injunctions are much broader than that, and prohibit the ban from being enforced against people who have no connection to the United States, which is a different calculus. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national." "So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of Section 2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:44:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing announced this morning in court. Scotusblog says something could still be announced later today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so no retirement? Ohhhh hell naw!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:55:17 AM EDT
[#47]
Another conservative equals Trump Train 2024
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 10:56:34 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The abortion debate has never been about whether or not the zygote/fetus/whatever is alive or not. The central question that people disagree on is whether or not it is a person - which is a philosophical/moral question, not a biological one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your premise is false. And genocide is still wrong, even if you don't like the people being murdered. The central question that people disagree on is whether or not it is a person - which is a philosophical/moral question, not a biological one. When an abortion loving feminist is pregnant and I slip her an abortive in her drink she will not lament the "expulsion of a zygote or fetus". She will claim I killed her baby. Rightly so. However, even though I understand that there isn't really much grey area I also can't get worked up too much over week 1, 2 abortion. Where I can at later stages so I understand why the debate rages on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 11:17:16 AM EDT
[#49]
If Kennedy retires soon, would 3-4 months be enough time to replace him? I'm not sure how he'd vote.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2017 11:26:49 AM EDT
[#50]
does anyone have the latest list of Trump's judges? Just curious what the various levels of conservatism are and then things that would make any of them unacceptable to the leftist/RINO republicans.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
