DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote:
Why, yes, I do believe, honestly, that there isn't an attack on women coming from the right. So, you're saying that because one of Romney's goals is to overturn Roe, that if he gets elected, it's going to be overturned?!? Have you not been paying attention to government the last half decade? Just because a President wants something doesn't mean he'll get it done. Look at Obama. He wanted Cap and Trade. He wanted to close Guantanamo. He wanted to get rid of Bush's double secret spy programs. He wanted Single payer.. no he didn't... yes he did. And, while the bill is passed, it doesn't take effect until 2014, so he may not even have gotten that done. Remember the "get lobbyists out of Washington" bullshit? Not at all, though. You're all worked up because Romney and the Party of R wants to overturn Roe in defense of the unborn. Those Bastards (think South Park)!! Yes those bastards have no right to decide for me what their religion dictates is best for them. The oldest Judge on the court right now is 79. Justice Ginsburg is the eldest member of a court that includes four justices in their 70s, making it among the oldest courts since the New Deal era. Its decisions during this historic “flood season,” as Justice Ginsburg described the end-of-term rush, are likely to make the panel — and the tenure of some of the justices — a significant issue in the presidential campaign. Stack the deck enough and anything is possible. Yes, stacking the deck can make things possible, unless you're actually talking about things that aren't authorities of the Federal Government (which I do believe abortion falls under, until that time when human rights are assumed by a developing fetus [which is not at fertilization or conception, IMO]). Protecting the rights of the fetus is a government thing, and should be a parental thing, too. Again, fetal rights are not conferred at fertilization or conception, IMO. Every single abortion measure could be repealed and replaced with one law defining when personhood is assumed to be. There will be cases where those rights could be over-ruled (ie. health of the mother) by supporting of other rights, but, by and large, there would be no need for any other laws, as abortion after personhood would be murder. I didn't fret Ryan's "personhood" amendment/bill/whatever because there was no way it would have passed, nor would it have passed constitutional muster.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|