'Murica! (90 Viewers)

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,190
That Texan Supreme Court decision is going to lead to a federal right to abortion, mark my words.

There is something to be said for the right to abortion to be codified in law rather than try to find things in the constitution that are just not there. I actually understand the US Supreme Court.

But this decision is criminal.

That child is not likely to be born alive. If it is, it will suffer and die within the first year. Nothing can be gained from this pregnancy. It is only suffering and risk.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Ronn

#TeamPestoFlies
May 3, 2012
19,566
That Texan Supreme Court decision is going to lead to a federal right to abortion, mark my words.

There is something to be said for the right to abortion to be codified in law rather than try to find things in the constitution that are just not there. I actually understand the US Supreme Court.

But this decision is criminal.

That child is not likely to be born alive. If it is, it will suffer and die within the first year. Nothing can be gained from this pregnancy. It is only suffering and risk.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
So you think it’ll be codified in law soon?
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,190
So you think it’ll be codified in law soon?
I don't know.

That is something the American public needs to decide indirectly through its politicians.

I just think it's pretty reasonable to say such a strong debate needs to be settles by the public, not by a court.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Ronn

#TeamPestoFlies
May 3, 2012
19,566
I don't know.

That is something the American public needs to decide indirectly through its politicians.

I just think it's pretty reasonable to say such a strong debate needs to be settles by the public, not by a court.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
:tup:
The way American legislative bodies are elected, especially US senate, makes this very difficult. Not dissimilar to civil rights 50 years ago.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,514

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
29,615
So is that it? If the US Supreme Court agrees, he can't be re-elected?

If this was the case and I was Trump, I would invite all those morons who stormed the capitol to Mar-a-Lago, get 'em in a big convention center, and gas all their dumb asses dead.
I guess it would have to by its implication alone, surely they can't say Colorado is right and then he be allowed to continue running? I can't picture this holding up though, what even happens at that point?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,514
I guess it would have to by its implication alone, surely they can't say Colorado is right and then he be allowed to continue running? I can't picture this holding up though, what even happens at that point?
Not sure. I mean, if the thought is that Trump is guilty of leading an insurrection, then the laws of the constitution should hold up between supreme courts. The question would be whether the court thinks he's guilty of the insurrection or not.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,252
So is that it? If the US Supreme Court agrees, he can't be re-elected?

If this was the case and I was Trump, I would invite all those morons who stormed the capitol to Mar-a-Lago, get 'em in a big convention center, and gas all their dumb asses dead.
ballots are a state thing. If the Supreme Court agree then Colorado can remove him from the ballot. And so can other states
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,190
So is that it? If the US Supreme Court agrees, he can't be re-elected?

If this was the case and I was Trump, I would invite all those morons who stormed the capitol to Mar-a-Lago, get 'em in a big convention center, and gas all their dumb asses dead.
If I was Trump I'd try to make sure the US Supreme Court doesn't have to decide the matter.

It would be such a gamble.

I get that it's a conservative court and that he appointed several justices. But they are still US Supreme Court justices and they won't decide in his favour just because he's Trump.

And if they rule against him, it's just inviting all other states to ban his nomination as well.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

.zero

★ ★ ★
Aug 8, 2006
80,376
She lacks the fundamental god given assigned gender and biological components required to even contend with DJT

So far the pre election szn hype for contenders is a South Indian billionaire and a woman :lol:

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel for DJT
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 74)