Here’s a good social policy for you:
USE A CONDOM!! They’re cheap and available in many fine gas stations near you…
1 Like
Once again…not a rebuttal to the fact that it’s the pro-birth, not the pro-life, movement.
Because it’s easier to seize the moral high ground when you take a stance that requires no sacrifice on your part.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t require any sacrifice on my part. It’s not my baby.
If I’m the father or mother then yes, it does.
So, now you are agreeing that Biden has confirmed he wants to disarm American citizens of the AR-15? If you are not, then here is his confirmation:
And so, we get back to the subject of the thread and what the real fight is about in appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
Do we appoint a Justice who will support and defend our written Constitution, and its documented legislative intent as expressed during the constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text?
Or, do we appoint a Justice to the Court who will apply the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to our Constitution?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Hence it’s easy for you to take a “moral” stance.
No, it’s not easy. It’s correct. I am morally responsible for my actions and choices, not yours.
If I choose to help you, it’s my choice.
If the child is a year old and I decide “now’s not the right time, it’s too hard”, what’s the moral stance?
nope. very recent case, scotus knew well the compact was out there and sent a message. politicians may not give away the votes of the people
you don’t. thats for certain
No you don’t.
Time to pass laws controlling men’s bodies.
1 Like
Speak for yourself. There are many of us who help out families with our own money and time.
To answer the OP Title???
Just too many ■■■■■■■ things to list.
abortion
gun rights/control
free exercise/establishment clause and the intersection thereof
campaign finance
LGBQT in all its many forms and applications
environmental protection
federalism
habeas corpus
ad nauseum
A new conservative Justice would bode well for some of these things and others and bode evil for some of these things and others.
My expectation is that there may be some judicial drift in the wake of this new confirmation. Justice Kavanaugh in some areas and Justice Gorsuch in others.
I agree. And Roberts. He will lean left to maintain the perception of impartiality.
Your list can be summed up as imposition of agenda.
Roberts will vote whichever way is the most politically expedient. he’s a ■■■■■■■ politician in a robe
Supreme Court Justices are like a box of chocolates.
Oh dear no…you never know what you are going to get.
1 Like
Considering where it has lead, I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit political parties in the Constitution from the beginning.
If you just voted for the particular candidate and his/her beliefs.
And, with regard to the list you present, the fight over appointing a Supreme Court Justice will determine whether or not that Justice will support and defend our written Constitution, and its documented legislative intent as expressed during the constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text, or, the Justice will apply the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to our Constitution when passing on the list you present.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
And that is what the real fight is about.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the socialist/communist controlled democrat leadership is frothing from their mouths and getting hysterical over President Trump’s desire to nominate a Justice who will actually follow the text of the Constitution as it was intended to apply, rather than a Justice who will use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and facies as the “rule of law”, and suggest such action is necessary to promote fairness, reasonableness and social justice.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
