Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 13 Next >>
Topic: The Supreme Court Decision: Roe v Wade Struck Down Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1960
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 9:56am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

These are truly evil lawmakers masquerading as Christians.
_____

Masquerading? Have you READ the Bible?
_____

JB, what exact problem do you have with the Christians of the Bible?  The whole "Love your enemies" thing?  Taking care of widows and orphans?  Or is it "Do not judge lest ye be judged"?

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 10:51am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I’m thinking more of the Bible that condemns homosexuals to death, that condones slavery, that tells us we’re going to Hell unless we hate our families. That even includes the concept (and description) of Hell.

That kind of thing.

But, by all means, cherry-pick and “interpret” until you clean it all up.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 11:05am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

White Life

So what did she MEAN to say?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 29437
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 11:35am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Yeah. What other word could’ve substituted there?
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1704
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

She said what she meant to say. 

I'll be blunt. Miller, like all of Trump supporters, are a bunch of racist mother fuckers and their Orange doG has fully enable them to show their feelings and actions.

The next 2 elections (November and in 2024) will decide where this country will be heading in the next 20-30 years.

I'm sure it ain't going to be pretty.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 12:43pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Apparently she was supposed to say “right to life”.

Paging Dr. Freud.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 29437
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

You’re exactly right, James.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11805
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Chief Justice Roberts can exercise what would be his greatest act of patriotism and retire... immediately... so that, before the Dems (presumably) lose the Senate in November, the Supreme Court could be brought to a 5-4 split.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 14657
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 2:58pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

From the JB's link, there is this quote from Trump: "I promised to nominate judges and justices who would stand up for the original meaning of the Constitution."

First: this originalist crap is dangerous. First of all, the original meaning of the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers inarguably intended to allow slavery. The nation made progress. Wiser thinking prevailed and the constitution was altered away from its original form to remove a great evil. This alone blows out of the water any notion that the original meaning of the constitution is valued above all else.

Second: the debate hinged almost entirely on the 14th amendment's right to privacy. The fourteenth amendment, part of the reconstruction amendments, was added in 1868, more than 80 years after the original constitution was drafted.

Third: to accept the majority argument that the right to privacy did not cover abortion, you have to believe that the right of woman to privacy over what is going on in her womb deserves to be taken away in favour of the government having oversight over what is going on in her womb.

Fourth: rights granted by substantive due process has been a principle adhered to by the Supreme Court for close to a hundred years. It seems outrageously egotistical of Thomas and co. to claim all the preceding Supreme Courts have been wrong on this and they are now right. It undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It seems a rogue decision, not based in law.

Fifth: the law should not be applied arbitrarily. Thomas an co. are fond of wading through hundreds of years of law to establish what is a part of American tradition (as an aside, substantive due process seems something of a tradition when it's been around for nearly longer than 99% of the population) and the concept of arbitrary application of the law being wrong goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.

Now, a pregnant woman in, say, Missouri, who booked an appointment for an abortion last week for next week was doing so with a constitutionally-protected right on her side that had stood for almost half a century. Overnight she finds that her appointment is now cancelled because the procedure is illegal down to a trigger-law. Had the appointment been for Thursday, it would have gone ahead. Booked for Friday, it's illegal. I would suggest this is arbitrary.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 3:14pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

The Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution to be carved in stone. That is why they included the mechanisms for amendments.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11805
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 3:48pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

No law is "carved in stone," as if the mere verbal expression involved nothing more than facile robotic obeisance.

Thou shalt not kill. 

Okay... what about self-defense, manslaughter, capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc. Or does "kill" mean "murder," and even if so, etc.? Or... other etc....!

The Founders, most lawyers, understood perfectly well what a law is and what every generation committed to it is called upon to do.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 26 June 2022 at 4:10pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

When I was in my teens, “thou shalt not kill” was changed, in some versions, to “thou shalt not commit murder”. No small part of the thinking was that soldiers should not have to imagine themselves condemned to Hell for defending their country.

My reaction was “Hey! How many times has this happened before??”

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 13 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login