Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,726,020 times
Reputation: 49248

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl View Post
Great post. That’s so true. The evangelicals want a theocracy and that’s the only reason they stand behind
Trump no matter how deranged and perverted he is. No problem as Trump is their useful tool. Pence is salivating as he knows he may be President soon, he already said he wants abortion illegal. Wonder how many of these children he’s going to help support by forcing a woman to have a child she can’t afford or wants.
Dont worry, Pence is not going to be president in the near future if ever. He know this, why are you even bringing it up? And if he were to become President regardless of what he may want, Legalized abortion is going no where. add to that, you obviously know very little about who has abortions and alternatives. Most women who abort do not do so based on finances. Many do abort based on not wanting the baby. it is sad they didn't use protection in most cases and yet are to selfish to consider adoption. Are you familiar with how many couples are waiting for babies because they can not have them? Obviously you are not!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:18 PM
 
52,431 posts, read 26,618,587 times
Reputation: 21097
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
Good idea. How about Ginsberg next.. oh wait she is a cyborg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoOnMyMind View Post
The Dems messed up not getting Ginsberg to step down in 2014. Not sure she can outlast Trump and if republicans get that seat it would be 6-3. She turns 85 this month!

I get the feeling that Ginsberg will try to lay up there in an iron lung if it meant that a Democrat got to pick her replacement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:23 PM
 
52,431 posts, read 26,618,587 times
Reputation: 21097
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post


And some libs claim we were “tricked” into voting for Trump over Hillary lol
Who would have thought the election of 2014 (not 2016) would have meant that the Democrats lost their only chance to change the makeup of the court for the next generation.

Now it will be Trump when he picks his 2nd justice.

I can see why the leftist heads are exploding with the news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:23 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 605,646 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
I get the feeling that Ginsberg will try to lay up there in an iron lung if it meant that a Democrat got to pick her replacement.
She’ll end up being one of those preserved heads like what was om futurama
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:29 PM
 
Location: In The Thin Air
12,566 posts, read 10,614,780 times
Reputation: 9247
I thought SCOTUS judges were supposed to be apolitical, that is if that is even possible. Republican Presidents shouldn't be nominating judges because they are conservative and vice versa for Democrat Presidents. Garland should have been appointed but turkey neck McConnell wants to make the great court something it was never meant to be, partisan. We should all be concerned if a President says he/she wants a conservative/liberal judge in the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:30 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,708,683 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
you are right: Roe versus Wade will never be overturned. I am for it not being even though I am pro life.
If conservatives really wanted to reduce abortion, they would make birth control available free everywhere. Think of all the wasted money, protesting and effort if birth control (pre and post) was easily obtained. Right wing blogs are already salivating that a new SCJ would oppose Roe vs. Wade as if it's already happened yet those same sites scream at the prospect of making birth control easily available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:30 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 605,646 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy View Post
I thought SCOTUS judges were supposed to be apolitical, that is if that is even possible. Republican Presidents shouldn't be nominating judges because they are conservative and vice versa for Democrat Presidents. Garland should have been appointed but turkey neck McConnell wants to make the great court something it was never meant to be, partisan. We should all be concerned if a President says he/she wants a conservative/liberal judge in the Supreme Court.
So then who should nominate the judges?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:31 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Gilead
12,716 posts, read 7,809,065 times
Reputation: 11338
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post

I can see why the leftist heads are exploding with the news.
Actually liberals are worried that we may have a SCOTUS that rules by the Bible instead of the US Constitution. We are not a theocracy. I don't understand why that's so hard for conservatives to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:31 PM
 
Location: In The Thin Air
12,566 posts, read 10,614,780 times
Reputation: 9247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlily87 View Post
So then who should nominate the judges?
The President of course. Did I say they shouldn't? No. They shouldn't be nominating based on how conservative or liberal they are. The judges need to be objective outside of partisan politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 01:32 PM
 
52,431 posts, read 26,618,587 times
Reputation: 21097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy View Post
I thought SCOTUS judges were supposed to be apolitical, ...
Where does it say that in the US Constitution?
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top