Featured The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

I wish that anti-abortion folk would be half as concerned about the life of a child after it is born as they are about the unborn. Being anti-abortion requires nothing from them in a material way. Being pro-life for both the unborn and the born is theological consistant. However, being in favor of society providing a good life for the born child will require real effort and material help and a large majority of

I beg to differ. Trump is much more dangerous. Look at all the scandals he has been involved in. There is no subsidence in any of his speeches. He has throw-away lines to bring cheers filled in between with bragging about himself.

Oh, and the man-in-the-moon could not win. That mythical fellow is not a natural born American citizen.

 

Society has no responsibility to provide a good life for anyone. People need to be self supporting. What actually requires nothing from people is to say its the governments (society) job to provide a good life for anyone.

I am proud to be an anti-abortionist and those who place themselves at odds with anti-abortionists as if they were other people and not yourself are only telling on yourself. When that same person also supports Planned Parenthood you are only telling on yourself.

See the issue is about more than just being "anti-abortion". The abortion process rips unborn children limb from limb in the most greusome fashion. Partial birth abortion delivers all but the head of a living child and then a tube is rammed into the base of the skull and the brain contents are suck out.

To simply put it in terms of "abortion" while comparing it to anything else is to demean and belittle to hard cold facts. It is also telling on yourself.

I am proud to be anti-abortion. If you do not like it too bad.

 

I agree and I believe she is a better choice than Trump at Commander-in-Chief, She certainly knows foreign policy better and is known by foreign leaders. Also, Putin wanting Trump sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

No question about that.

What is post-birth abortion. Looks like an oxymoron to me. How can a child be aborted after birth. He will use abortion as a throw-away line to get cheers. I do not think he is serious about this issue. I am not sure what issue he is serious about. He is backing away from his hard illegal alien stance.

I don't think Trump can do anything about abortion. I doubt he will even try. He has been on both sides of this issue.

I'll look for your posts.

I also was being tongue-in-cheek.

 

That's absolutely revolting. Just sickening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

According to the GOP, The SCOTUS doesn't make law. That rests with the legislative branch of government.

 

That's ruling on the Constitutionality of OTHER laws. That's not undoing the 2nd Amendment. Their rulings don't change what's in the 2nd Amendment and the rights that it affords.

Stop the fear mongering. GOPers are always talking about somebody wanting to take their guns.

Where has Hillary Clinton ever expressed a desire to stop private ownership of guns?

Then stand and fight when they come to take your guns.

You can call it whatever you want. The SCOTUS makes suggestions in accordance with their interpretations of the Constitution.

They can invalidate legislation by deeming it unConstitutional. They CANNOT make new law.

This is why they deal with invalidating laws and not what's in the Constitution. They can't change the Constitution.

 

We didn't cover that in law school.

 

Oh come on. You're being deliberately obnoxious. I can appreciate the humor of it (I can be obnoxious for kicks, too), but the details are fuzzy.. You know full well that in a common law system cases establish precedent, and that precedent is universally binding if it comes from SCOTUS. Thus, SCOTUS has the de facto position of being able to create law through cases. It may not have that authority de jure, but the mere fact that the concept of judicial review as we know it was established in Marbury vs. Madison---case law!

Thus, SCOTUS as we know it today basically created itself.

Sure, a few legislative remedies exist (expanding the Court like FDR attempted, for one), but we tend to defer to tradition (i.e. precedent), even when it isn't binding.

There is, however, almost nothing to stop SCOTUS from taking a activist approach that reinterprets part of the Constitution to fit an agenda (cf. Wickard v. Filburn). Plus, with the principle of Chevron deference for federal agencies, SCOTUS could go out of its way to make an activist-friendly decision.

I'm not saying that SCOTUS will invalidate Amendments. It can't do that. What it can do is validate laws that violate those Amendments and strike down those that uphold them.

So can they make law? Not directly, but they can use perfectly-crafted cases for which they can grant cert and can then rule as they wish.

 

I don't see anywhere in there where she's vowing to overturn the individual gun ownership rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment. That story spoke to here belief that there should be better gun storage. The guy says that's not what the case was about, but he says that's what she spoke to and then added his own speculation and fear mongering about what he THINKS is her motive.

 

I'm advocating that if you're that much of a gun diehard and are afraid that Hillary is gonna send folks to take your guns, then fight back when they come. In the unlikely world that something like that wouldn't happen,you'll probably be killed but by golly, your dead corpse will probably still be grasping your guns.