Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

John Roberts Proves He's Nothing More Than An Empty Robe

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

moocow
3 hours ago, mliff1 said:

Roberts is a tool. Bush appointed him, Trump and Bush hate each other. Bush said he would never comment on the office of the P.O.T.U.S. and he didn't, until Trump got in office. Bush hates Trump, Roberts is Bush's buddy, he too must hate Trump and not allow Trump to have any victories.... Done.

In retrospect, Roberts is an extremely poor choice.  Basically another Souter. But I don't think these rulings have anything to do with Trump or Bush.  I think Roberts, as WeaselJD mentions, is just a gutless coward with no convictions.

But I don't really blame Bush for Roberts.  The environment at that point for judicial nominees was toxic.  Bush had put tons of good judicial nominees up, and they were getting filibustered in the senate.  The Dims held the senate then, and Harry Reid was not allowing anyone through.  Some nominees had been held up in the Senate for YEARS (Charles Pickering, Janice Brown, etc).  In that environment, Roberts is probably the best you could do.  And even then, he went through a rather political approval process through the Senate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
50 minutes ago, CHANG said:

What is the alternative? Living up to your responsibilities? Or failing that, putting the baby up for adoption?
 

How is murder a more palatable alternative to any solution, especially when there are so many programs and groups that will happily find a loving home for a child? 

The alternative is a thousand Kermit Gosnell’s operating in back alleys across the nation, because desperate women will do what they must. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG
11 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

The alternative is a thousand Kermit Gosnell’s operating in back alleys across the nation, because desperate women will do what they must. 

And how do you come to that ridiculous conclusion? 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
9 minutes ago, CHANG said:

And how do you come to that ridiculous conclusion? 

There was abortion long before it was legal. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oathtaker
1 hour ago, Ladybird said:

The alternative is a thousand Kermit Gosnell’s operating in back alleys across the nation, because desperate women will do what they must. 

That is incorrect.

The individual states would decide instead of the Fed dictating their alleged “morality”.

 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mliff1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, moocow said:

In retrospect, Roberts is an extremely poor choice.  Basically another Souter. But I don't think these rulings have anything to do with Trump or Bush.  I think Roberts, as WeaselJD mentions, is just a gutless coward with no convictions.

But I don't really blame Bush for Roberts.  The environment at that point for judicial nominees was toxic.  Bush had put tons of good judicial nominees up, and they were getting filibustered in the senate.  The Dims held the senate then, and Harry Reid was not allowing anyone through.  Some nominees had been held up in the Senate for YEARS (Charles Pickering, Janice Brown, etc).  In that environment, Roberts is probably the best you could do.  And even then, he went through a rather political approval process through the Senate as well.

Fair enough. I just thought Bush was great and voted for him twice and he's really dissapointed me these past 4 years.

Edited by mliff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
3 hours ago, scotsman said:

Play the ball Monty, not the man.

BTW, I am pro-choice, so am I worthless filth?. I don't like abortion, but I don't like the alternative.

You don't like children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ladybird said:

The alternative is a thousand Kermit Gosnell’s operating in back alleys across the nation, because desperate women will do what they must. 

Ahhh...So murder should be legal because some people will engage in murder anyway...?

<_< 

 

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG
3 hours ago, Ladybird said:

There was abortion long before it was legal. 

That’s cute. Put that on a bumper sticker, why don’t you.

 

I was going to say you didn’t answer my question. But, then I realized, you don’t understand the significance of the Roe v. Wade decision, do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PaleoPatriot

Roberts is a poster child for term limits on these judges, or at least be accountable to someone.  Roberts thinking is just not reasonable.  He seems to rewrite the law, and obamacare is prime example.  But, since the repubs and demons seem to be part of some club, nothing happens.  Nonetheless, Roberts has been a big disappointment.  So the libs don't want back alley abortions, but they are OK with doctors or technicians preforming these surgeries by doctors that don't have admitting privileges to local hospitals.  How is that not like that abortion mill that they use as an example for legal murder or children?  Maybe Roberts is a racist since blacks are aborted at a much higher rate than any other group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot
12 hours ago, Weaseljd said:

Deep State has nothing to do with it - and frankly is a poor analogy.  The courts are not art of the Deep State since they are a different branch of the government and not career in the same way that they work in a hidden way.

Roberts has proven however he is a gutless coward.  He is so afraid of appearing partisan or allowing the court to appear "political" that he will come up with any rational to not rock the boat or allow the court to make any decisions that  change status quo.  In one respect it is very conservative (basically giving tons of deference to the government and relying on precedent to uphold the laws) - though his immigration decision shows the truth - he is afraid and lacks the courage of his beliefs.  

What will be amazing however is this - I bet anyone here a hundred bucks (safe bet as I now think he is going to lose unfortunately), that if Trump is re-elected and the republicans hold the senate, if Ginsberg gets replaced by a conservative suddenly Roberts would find his manhood again and vote with the conservatives because there would be a 5 member majority without him and suddenly he would have cover for voting with the conservative block on these issues since they would have control with or without his vote.  This makes him a piss poor judge.

Trump is going to slaughter Biden in November - no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

Other than that, I think you're right about everything else. :2up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot
Posted (edited)

*

Edited by ThePatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot
Posted (edited)

*

Edited by ThePatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd
7 hours ago, Ladybird said:

There was abortion long before it was legal. 

For which Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was so thankful as it provided a means for her to accomplish her goal - the attempt to eradicate black people from America through mass use of abortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
9 minutes ago, Weaseljd said:

For which Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was so thankful as it provided a means for her to accomplish her goal - the attempt to eradicate black people from America through mass use of abortion

If I stated that “abortion is a good thing because it results in less black babies”, how would Ladybird react? It would be quite the trap. 
 

(I wouldn’t state it and mean it, but just as an illustration of how to box oneself in the corner.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
9 hours ago, Ladybird said:

There was abortion long before it was legal. 

Sure there was.  No one is denying that.

Is it your contention that abortion rates were the same as they are now prior to legalized abortion and that roughly 1M abortions were performed each year in back alley fashion?  Is it your contention that, for example, more black babies are aborted than are born in NYC prior to Roe v. Wade?

If yes, I would love to see some evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
10 hours ago, Ladybird said:

The alternative is a thousand Kermit Gosnell’s operating in back alleys across the nation, because desperate women will do what they must. 

You do know that Gosnell was an actual licensed doctor and that he ran a legal abortion clinic right out in the open, right?  He was not a back alley provider. 

So, what you are saying is that the horror of Gosnell already being repeated a thousand fold by licensed doctors in openly operating abortion clinics and banning abortions of convenience will just drive those ghouls underground.  So, might as well let them operate in the open.  Is that about it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman
23 hours ago, USMCforever60 said:

Ultimately decision to abort resides with each woman. That is their choice, however, if they chose, then they pay for it themselves. NO MORE PUBLIC FUNDED ABORTIONS!  

Actually, as some pro-choice, that's a fair idea. The taxpayer would then only pay for certain abortions ie emergency cases, underage cases where the child has been raped/abused, and obviously cases of adult rape/sexual assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman
20 hours ago, CHANG said:

What is the alternative? Living up to your responsibilities? Or failing that, putting the baby up for adoption?
 

How is murder a more palatable alternative to any solution, especially when there are so many programs and groups that will happily find a loving home for a child? 

The alternative is forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term, that she does not want. Its easy to say take responsibility, but what if she has?. No form of birth control is perfect. Not every female that opts for abortion is some sexually-loose wh*re. Humans aren't perfect, and our laws and societies must reflect that. We teach from the Bible, that killing is a sin, yet we do it in certain circumstance, because humanity isn't perfect and sadly the taking of life is sometimes necessary. And we recognise that.

I reject the idea that a foetus automatically gains the primacy of right, that its supposed right to life overrules and supercedes all. That it is a right that forces all others to yield to it. Rights are NOT absolute, that's Philosophy 101. Rights are exercised within the context of which they exist. In your opinion, the foetus has the sole right to exist. I disagree, for me the mother, the host, HAS to have the primary right. And if that means, as billions of women will and do. that they wish to carry to term, then that's fantastic. If some choose not to carry to term, then that's their choice and I support their right to do so, without emotive language like murder. I value life as much as anyone here. But that does not mean I support the banning of abortion, or more to the point, the basic right to choose. I value life, but that does not mean I wouldn't think twice to take a life/lives if it demanded it. I was trained to kill. And in 2008, when attacked, if I had to, I'd have taken his life. Otherwise I might not have been here, or possibly my mother, father and brother, all of whom were present. Thanklully a few punches was all it took.

That's why I will not allow anyone here to call me pro-abortion, I am merely pro-choice. I only want females to have the right to choose without outside interference, be that moral from other people or by govt or by oppressive laws, all of which impose OTHER people's morality, views and opinions on a person. Abortion should be a choice for the woman, and if necessary, the family unit, whatever that may be (2.4 nuclear family or a couple). In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't exist, but it does, is thousands of years old and should at least be brought within a legal and moral framework that society can agree to and adhere to. I detest any woman who uses it as birth control, I detest any medical group or person who vilely abuses the rights women gained in 1973 (1967 in the UK). Scum like that Kermit creature. Gosnell wasn't it.

So no, its not perfect, but I cannot support the alternative, sorry.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman
18 hours ago, Oathtaker said:

That is incorrect.

The individual states would decide instead of the Fed dictating their alleged “morality”.

 

 

Always thought that was the best (imperfect) solution. Community standards etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
36 minutes ago, scotsman said:

The alternative is forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term, that she does not want. Its easy to say take responsibility, but what if she has?. No form of birth control is perfect. Not every female that opts for abortion is some sexually-loose wh*re. Humans aren't perfect, and our laws and societies must reflect that. We teach from the Bible, that killing is a sin, yet we do it in certain circumstance, because humanity isn't perfect and sadly the taking of life is sometimes necessary. And we recognise that.

I reject the idea that a foetus automatically gains the primacy of right, that its supposed right to life overrules and supercedes all. That it is a right that forces all others to yield to it. Rights are NOT absolute, that's Philosophy 101. Rights are exercised within the context of which they exist. In your opinion, the foetus has the sole right to exist. I disagree, for me the mother, the host, HAS to have the primary right. And if that means, as billions of women will and do. that they wish to carry to term, then that's fantastic. If some choose not to carry to term, then that's their choice and I support their right to do so, without emotive language like murder. I value life as much as anyone here. But that does not mean I support the banning of abortion, or more to the point, the basic right to choose. I value life, but that does not mean I wouldn't think twice to take a life/lives if it demanded it. I was trained to kill. And in 2008, when attacked, if I had to, I'd have taken his life. Otherwise I might not have been here, or possibly my mother, father and brother, all of whom were present. Thanklully a few punches was all it took.

That's why I will not allow anyone here to call me pro-abortion, I am merely pro-choice. I only want females to have the right to choose without outside interference, be that moral from other people or by govt or by oppressive laws, all of which impose OTHER people's morality, views and opinions on a person. Abortion should be a choice for the woman, and if necessary, the family unit, whatever that may be (2.4 nuclear family or a couple). In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't exist, but it does, is thousands of years old and should at least be brought within a legal and moral framework that society can agree to and adhere to. I detest any woman who uses it as birth control, I detest any medical group or person who vilely abuses the rights women gained in 1973 (1967 in the UK). Scum like that Kermit creature. Gosnell wasn't it.

So no, its not perfect, but I cannot support the alternative, sorry.

Every woman who is aware that engaging in sex might result in pregnancy, and voluntarily chooses to do so anyway, has made her choice. If she absolutely cannot accept the responsibility of carrying a pregnancy to term, then she has no business engaging in sex in the first place. Especially since everybody knows (as you yourself pointed out) no form of birth control is perfect.

Look, if I throw rocks in the direction of somebody's house, and I don't intend to break a window, but I accidentally break one anyway, I must accept the responsibility of paying for a new window. It's no good afterwards to insist I didn't mean to break it. Therefore if I just plain can't and won't accept that responsibility, then I must refrain from throwing those rocks in the first place.

I still fully support a woman's right to choose abortion when she didn't voluntarily choose to engage in sex (i.e. rape), when she was too young to make such a choice responsibly (child abuse, incest), and/or when the mother's life is in direct danger. But if she's of legal age, her life isn't in any undue danger, and she voluntarily chose to engage in sex in the first place, abortion is just plain murder.

B) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, MontyPython said:

Every woman who is aware that engaging in sex might result in pregnancy, and voluntarily chooses to do so anyway, has made her choice. If she absolutely cannot accept the responsibility of carrying a pregnancy to term, then she has no business engaging in sex in the first place. Especially since everybody knows (as you yourself pointed out) no form of birth control is perfect.

Look, if I throw rocks in the direction of somebody's house, and I don't intend to break a window, but I accidentally break one anyway, I must accept the responsibility of paying for a new window. It's no good afterwards to insist I didn't mean to break it. Therefore if I just plain can't and won't accept that responsibility, then I must refrain from throwing those rocks in the first place.

I still fully support a woman's right to choose abortion when she didn't voluntarily choose to engage in sex (i.e. rape), when she was too young to make such a choice responsibly (child abuse, incest), and/or when the mother's life is in direct danger. But if she's of legal age, her life isn't in any undue danger, and she voluntarily chose to engage in sex in the first place, abortion is just plain murder.

B) 

 

Well said Monty, as usual, Bottom line is two heartbeats go in to the "Clinic" and one heartbeat is snuffed out...it does not matter if you justify it saying the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest ( an extremely small number I understand out of the literally millions that happen every year ) or to save the life of the Mother it is still homicide, which under certain conditions are considered "Justifiable". Still dead..but "Justifiable"...As to the people like L/B clucking about if we didn't allow millions of children to be butchered in well lighted sanitary "Acceptable Auschwitz's" then the Murder of these innocents will simply take place in dark back alleys...where in my opinion, murders should take place..more fitting I think.

Kestrel...

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MontyPython said:

Every woman who is aware that engaging in sex might result in pregnancy, and voluntarily chooses to do so anyway, has made her choice.

It's not uncommon for an individual woman to have been deceived into consenting to sex.

In the event that a man has lied about his intent to be a partner in parenting, should the power of the state be used to compel American women to carry to term?  

Edited by That_Guy
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
5 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

It's not uncommon for an individual woman to have been deceived into consenting to sex.

In the event that a man has lied about his intent to be a partner in parenting, should the power of the state be used to compel American women to carry to term?  

Yes.

As for the scenario you've portrayed, we've already been over this in previous threads. Why is she having sex with somebody she barely knows? If she knew him well enough to have sex with him, she'd know better than to fall for such a lie from such a man.

B)

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
19 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Yes.

So you're fine with the state imposing morality via legislation which takes away the individual's right to be free to make medical choices?

 

23 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

If she knew him well enough to have sex with him, she'd know better than to fall for such a lie from such a man.

The power of the state should be used to take away her right to be free to make medical choices, and compel her to carry to term as punishment for not "know(ing better?"

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...