U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2019, 10:00 AM
 
2,271 posts, read 471,413 times
Reputation: 2055

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity View Post
Upon further reflection, I'm changing my statement from "was back" to "is back".

The tumor wasn't removed. It was treated.

The statement saying "there is no evidence of disease elsewhere" doesn't mean that the cancer still isn't in her pancreas.

I think this actually it be it for RBG.
That press release was pure spin. Anyone who knows anything about cancer knows that it's still there, and yes it is "back."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2019, 10:30 AM
 
11,882 posts, read 4,356,173 times
Reputation: 5628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
All this OH ROLL BACK GAY MARRIAGE CRAP is very annoying, though. It's not happening. I don't care if we get 9 Scalias on there.

The Government can't just void how many hundreds of thousands of marriages.....can you imagine how tied up the courts would be with everyone suing? So if the marriage wasn't valid, who gets what that they bought together in the divorce? That's just one of a million reasons why they won't touch it. Well more than half of Americans support it, anyway.

Same sex marriage isn't going anywhere. It was settled 4 years ago. The Pat Robertsons of the world can get get the **** over it. Most republicans don't even care. Just cause they don't go to pride parades it doesn't make them bigots.

I'm in one, just btw. Not worried one bit.

Edit: My irritability wasn't directed at you, this is just an issue that really gets under my skin because it would never happen.
It wasn't settled. It was just ruled on. And that by a 5-4 margin. To settle it, a constitutional amendment would be required.

But overturning Oberfell would not automatically revoke homosexual "marriages". All that would do is return authority of this question to the states, each of which would pass its own law on this subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 10:36 AM
 
11,882 posts, read 4,356,173 times
Reputation: 5628
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipsyguam View Post
Agreed Roe/Wade is settled law but its the lefts current boogeyman in the SC....man on here said God knows how many times it was going to be repealed if Kavanaugh(go back and read the multiple threads on him if you want sources) gets confirmed and guess what today..it is still settled law.
Roe v Wade is horrible law, and even RBG has publicly said so. This case is ripe for overturning and hopefully it will be soon.

However, for those who are not well informed about what this would mean, the overturning of Roe v Wade would not make abortions illegal in this country. It would just return authority of this topic to the states, which would then make whatever laws their legislatures wanted to make on this subject.

And while many of these states would surely have more restrictive laws that what we have now, it is highly likely that many people would be surprised to see that very few and perhaps none of these states banned abortions in ALL circumstances. But in many of these states, the use of easy abortion as a form of reactive birth control would be hopefully ended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 11:22 AM
 
46,605 posts, read 18,735,172 times
Reputation: 19399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
She could have retired under Obama but refused, she likes what she does and her work keeps her going. No worse than presidents asking justices to retire under their watch not because of performance, just because they want their pick. There are 4 justices 70 and over counting RBG but you never know as was the case with Scalia.
It's clear she wanted the first woman President to name her replacement. Now she's left with trying to outlive Trump's presidency.


She's as vain as Biden. Refusing to let go so the next generation can take over even though their day is well well past. She could be enjoying retirement, like Biden, but they stubbornly hold on to their positions of power. It's a sad way to live. Say way to end life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 11:25 AM
 
46,605 posts, read 18,735,172 times
Reputation: 19399
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
[/b]

She knows exactly what she is doing. How is her stepping down better for our country
Because it lets the next generation take over. She's clearly too infirm to do her job now. She's stubbornly holding on because her plan to have Hillary Clinton name her replacement failed.



So at this point it's nothing but politics and her vanity. That's not good for the USA at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 11:27 AM
 
46,605 posts, read 18,735,172 times
Reputation: 19399
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
If RBG makes it past January 1, 2020, but doesn't make it past January 20, 2021. Do you think McConnell should avoid hypocrisy/act as he did with Garland and refuse to put a nominee up for a vote, or do you think McConnell should say "F hypocrisy" and confirm whoever Trump nminates ?
Nope. He never claimed this wasn't anything more that pure politics. Elections have consequences and the fact that Obama lost the senate in '14 cost him the chance to seat a justice. It's not any more complicated than that.


Call him a hypocrite if you like. It won't change the fact that McConnell will do everything he can to seat another Justice under Trump. The left will go completely nuclear, but it won't matter.



Of course this conversation is a moot point. As it stands now, Trump is going to be re-elected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 11:50 AM
 
6,199 posts, read 1,609,931 times
Reputation: 4964
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Fox & Friends this morning went on about "the Left" making statements that if RBG resigns, McConnell cannot vote on a nominee replacement during an election year if he has any substance. Fox & Friends expressed outrage that The Left did not wish RBG well but made it political.

Interesting thing: not at any time during that Fox & Friends ranting segment, did any one of them on F & F wish RBG well.
Who was that? Juan Williams? Hint: He's a leftie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
567 posts, read 78,739 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
And yet how many states are drafting laws that fly in the face of Roe Wade?



Unless you are also upset about states that have legalized Marijuana use like Colorado even though its illegal at the federal level, then you are a hypocrite.




Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Call him a hypocrite if you like. It won't change the fact that McConnell will do everything he can to seat another Justice under Trump. The left will go completely nuclear, but it won't matter.

Yes, they certainly will..I would say I have popcorn ready but I don't like popcorn..Ill be doing ice cream instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 12:21 PM
 
520 posts, read 69,696 times
Reputation: 128
All things considered she has had a good run . Part of your public service however does include an obligation to let go at some point should your ability to fulfil your duties become circumscribed by illness . Especially a terminal one .
For most people at that stage time spent with family becomes the paramount concern , and so the question never comes up .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,816 posts, read 730,406 times
Reputation: 2262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
It wasn't settled. It was just ruled on. And that by a 5-4 margin. To settle it, a constitutional amendment would be required.

But overturning Oberfell would not automatically revoke homosexual "marriages". All that would do is return authority of this question to the states, each of which would pass its own law on this subject.
Since obviously I don’t count as an American human being I’m not wasting my time with you.

My “marriage” in quotes?

It’s settled, get over it. States wouldn’t be voiding marriages either.

I was married in California but now live in Tennessee....how would that work?

Last edited by Mister 7; 08-24-2019 at 01:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top