Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?
- Thread starter CunningCanuk
- Start date
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
You have faith in God or you do notyour existence ???
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Huh, well, alright then.
i was doing just this except lighter on bowl and hand on mouth piece; i had Tucker Carlson face seeing it twice in a row.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Is this the part where we yell PRAISE JESUS!!! Then put the rattlesnakes back in the cage 
!
!
HGCC
Well-Known Member
How redistricting will shape every state for the next decade
States are redrawing every congressional district map in America. POLITICO's tracking where things stand.
www.politico.com
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
So.... we're playing the part of a psychopath?
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
Sorry...not a psychopath. A sociopath or suffering from early detachment. You know....Oedipus.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
American ISIS, much?
one abortion per customer is not in the Bible.
you get limited to one fuck incel..oh look he forgot.
injinji
Well-Known Member
Last night on Washington Week in Review one of the reporters stole Beau's line about the dog catching the car. For 50 years the GOP has been able to use folks like the gentleman above for fund raising and votes without really having to do anything other than talk. Now that they are actually on the brink of overturning R v W, the establishment Republicans are scared shitless. They can read polls, and the numbers are 70/30. This may turn some of the red states purple.
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Several things can be construed from this passage. One: I see is that it happens against her will. I interpret "men strive" as a violent action. People would say that the abortion itself is the violent action but, it's not against her will.
Two: She has no say in the matter since it's the husband who determines punishment. The judge would come into play if the husband brought it in front of him. Also meaning if the husband doesn't press charges no action is taken. If she were single the judgement would come from her father. If he is not around it then goes to the oldest son, then uncle. This also means no one else has a say in the matter. It's a family matter.
One other thing. This isn't looked at as murder.
Segue. Bring this back and adultery will diminish. Chances are, discovery is through pregnancy.
Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
We could all use an extra wife or two. Remember two things. Wife #1 has no say in this and 2, She does get to rule over them.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Several things can be construed from this passage. One: I see is that it happens against her will. I interpret "men strive" as a violent action. People would say that the abortion itself is the violent action but, it's not against her will.
Two: She has no say in the matter since it's the husband who determines punishment. The judge would come into play if the husband brought it in front of him. Also meaning if the husband doesn't press charges no action is taken. If she were single the judgement would come from her father. If he is not around it then goes to the oldest son, then uncle. This also means no one else has a say in the matter. It's a family matter.
One other thing. This isn't looked at as murder.
Segue. Bring this back and adultery will diminish. Chances are, discovery is through pregnancy.
Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
We could all use an extra wife or two. Remember two things. Wife #1 has no say in this and 2, She does get to rule over them.
Last edited:
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Oh ya we could all use a extra wife or two
. I had a hard enough time keeping one happy .
Last edited:
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
So that's an easy fix. You change the voting rules so you can throw out any votes you don't like or for no reason at all. Oh wait isn't Texass or is it
Arizona doing that?
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I believe you just illustrated the two ways that can break. I would argue that the ones who worked for universal suffrage were the bigger men.
printer
Well-Known Member
Just hoping the women of today are made of sterner stuff than the ones back then.
printer
Well-Known Member
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: SCOTUS on Verge of 'Cataclysmic Political Event'
While Roe v. Wade has been Supreme Court precedent for 50 years, it is standing its biggest legal test right now, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax, as Mississippi seeks move the timetable on abortion restrictions.
"There are only three justices, I think today, who would uphold Roe v. Wade completely," Dershowitz told Saturday's "America Right Now."
Those are the three liberal justices on the court – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – putting as least a partial unwinding of Roe v. Wade on the table right now, Dershowitz told host Tom Basile.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch figure to be on the side of overruling Roe v. Wade, while Chief Justice John Roberts is in the middle and likely attempting to pull in the newest Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to join him, according to Dershowitz.
"The key question is going to be whether Chief Justice Roberts can persuade either Justices Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh to join him in upholding Roe v. Wade, while also upholding the Mississippi statute that changes the timing from viability [of a fetus] from 23 weeks to 15 weeks," Dershowitz said.
"So, if he can get one of them to join him, we will not see Roe v. wade overruled – at least not yet."
Without Barrett and Kavanaugh joining Roberts and the liberals, Roe v. Wade precedent is going to be forever changed in case law, which would be "cataclysmic political event," Dershowitz said.
"But, if you can't get either of them to join him, then he will probably join the three dissenters in upholding Roe v. wade, but they'll be five justices to overrule it, and that would cause a cataclysmic political event in America," he predicted. "Congress would try to pass a statute first making abortion of federal right. It would become a major issue in the 2022 midterms and then in the 2024 presidential."
The ruling on Mississippi might change more than the legal precedent on a woman's right to choose abortion, but it might ultimately change the Supreme Court forever, Dershowitz concluded.
"I think the choice is between either overruling Roe v. Wade or the middle-ground position upholding Mississippi but not overruling," he said. "I think that is right now in process. I think that Roberts is working hard on these two justices to try to persuade them that the court's integrity depends on not overruling – even if it's a wrong, many of them think it is – a precedent that's been on the books for 50 years.
www.newsmax.com
While Roe v. Wade has been Supreme Court precedent for 50 years, it is standing its biggest legal test right now, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax, as Mississippi seeks move the timetable on abortion restrictions.
"There are only three justices, I think today, who would uphold Roe v. Wade completely," Dershowitz told Saturday's "America Right Now."
Those are the three liberal justices on the court – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – putting as least a partial unwinding of Roe v. Wade on the table right now, Dershowitz told host Tom Basile.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch figure to be on the side of overruling Roe v. Wade, while Chief Justice John Roberts is in the middle and likely attempting to pull in the newest Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to join him, according to Dershowitz.
"The key question is going to be whether Chief Justice Roberts can persuade either Justices Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh to join him in upholding Roe v. Wade, while also upholding the Mississippi statute that changes the timing from viability [of a fetus] from 23 weeks to 15 weeks," Dershowitz said.
"So, if he can get one of them to join him, we will not see Roe v. wade overruled – at least not yet."
Without Barrett and Kavanaugh joining Roberts and the liberals, Roe v. Wade precedent is going to be forever changed in case law, which would be "cataclysmic political event," Dershowitz said.
"But, if you can't get either of them to join him, then he will probably join the three dissenters in upholding Roe v. wade, but they'll be five justices to overrule it, and that would cause a cataclysmic political event in America," he predicted. "Congress would try to pass a statute first making abortion of federal right. It would become a major issue in the 2022 midterms and then in the 2024 presidential."
The ruling on Mississippi might change more than the legal precedent on a woman's right to choose abortion, but it might ultimately change the Supreme Court forever, Dershowitz concluded.
"I think the choice is between either overruling Roe v. Wade or the middle-ground position upholding Mississippi but not overruling," he said. "I think that is right now in process. I think that Roberts is working hard on these two justices to try to persuade them that the court's integrity depends on not overruling – even if it's a wrong, many of them think it is – a precedent that's been on the books for 50 years.
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: SCOTUS on Verge of 'Cataclysmic Political Event'
While Roe v. Wade has been Supreme Court precedent for 50 years, it is facing its biggest legal test right now, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax, as Mississippi seeks to move the timetable on abortion restrictions."There are only three...