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.
Exactly how was Obama supposed to push Garland through with a Republican controlled House and Senate?
a playbook gets handed out every week or so to the "good Democrats". Perhaps you didn't sign up for yours. A recent version of the playbook refers to "Obama should have made a recess appointment to name Garland a SCOTUS judge".
Unfortunately, the playbook is usually based upon partisan talking points and important sounding words that mean nothing.
Here's a "fact check" from 2018 about Dem playbook claims at the time that the Senate was required to hold a vote on Garland.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
they're probably clinging to this clause:
Quote:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
now, obviously, Senate rules have made it so 2/3 of Senators are no longer required (thank Harry Reid).
and this "Recess appointment" falls at least a little flat. The 2016 Senate was "officially" in session from Jan 4, 2016 to Jan 3, 2017. They did take at least 1 recess in summer 2016 for 10 days. However, I'm assuming since Majority Leader sets the Calendar, even a "recess appointment" of Garland by Obama during the summer recess could have been quickly quashed by declaring the session "ended" or a recess, if that were the method attempted by Obama.
If you were to look at the 2022 calendar, set by Schumer, you'd see Federal Holidays off, but the "session" lasting from Jan - Dec
Anyway, it's not murder if what is being "killed" is nothing more than a clump of cells which have no viability outside the womb.
Do you honestly believe a growing embryo with all of the instructions that are there after fertilization is nothing more than a lump of cells?
After fertilization an uninterupted process of development begins that doesn't stop until maybe the mid 20s.
Agreed the viability outside of a womb is not there but that is changed over time by science. Although I do not see what viability has to do with it anyway. I believe it can be defined in different ways. A newborn is not viable without outside help. Maybe we should bring back infanticide. Why burden the parents if they don't want the baby?
I found this definition of viability on the internet (so it must be true)
Quote:
In Biology the definition of viability goes like this: Viability is the capacity of a living organism to stay alive, sustain its life, growth, and development.
But if that’s not horrifying enough, I have actually seen undercover video (that I wish I hadn’t ever seen) of these demonically possessed abortion practitioners take the lifeless bodies of the babies they just killed, and dance them around like marionettes, laughing and saying bye bye mommy, in baby like voices. If I didn’t see it myself, I might have a hard time accepting the fact that anyone could do such things. But they can, cuz I have sadly seen it done.
That is absolutely sick. Anyone who would do that is pure evil. Such a person deserves the treatment he or she would have gotten in Middle Age Europe for doing such a thing.
In the context of history, which I've studied a lot, such cultures as the Aztec were always perplexing to me. They were quite advanced for their time and place. But I've always wondered how an entire civilization could just allow the very evil acts that were perpetrated (human sacrifice by cutting the heart out of a living person; breaking children's bones and dragging them through the streets until they were dead; etc). Well, look at what we allow today--for instance, your quoted paragraph. That is just as sick and just as evil. I'm no longer surprised by the barbarity and evil of the past because we are headed that direction right now.
We fundamentally disagree about nudity, sexuality, and homosexuality being "wrong" things, so I'll stop there. The term fetus is just a more accurate description of the baby from 9 weeks until birth. I agree with you on the manipulation of terms to cast things in a better light, and I agree with you that abortion is ending a life, full stop. Where we probably disagree is whether it's morally/ethically to end that life.
At 9 weeks the baby is still an embryo. Fetus is a scientific term for the stage of development of the unborn baby. It was never originally intended to dehumanize the baby, but the terms of development have been thus used to make the baby seem less human to many people.
Nice photoshop. They could have tried a little harder, the perspective aspect is off, look how the sign on the right has the print slanting down at the top but straight across the bottom. I give it a 5/10, needs work.
And wow, you are really pulling out all the stops, even randomly trying to claim racism. Obviously, I said nothing racist, but I know sometimes you've probably seen that work to make people back down in horror, so maybe it's all you've got.
And I have a hundred times the compassion you do. You managed to glaze over my explanations and then claim I'm a hypocrite. Are you all set to feed all those babies? I hope so. I want to see that actual compassion. So far I haven't. So far I've seen, "well, women should have closed their legs and their kids are hood rats." I see the compassion die once the fetus is out of the womb.
Put your money where your mouth is, gladly accept the increase in taxes, don't expect a fed handout for your state decision - feed those children you say are precious, and then we'll talk. Meet you back here then.
Those are your words in bold. And it does have a racist bent.
And you seem to directly justify killing babies (you call them fetuses, but they are still human babies) based on your baseless straw man argument that if they are not killed before they are born, they’ll just be left to starve to death afterward? No, you don’t have compassion, you have a mental illness.
And no, sorry, but your photoshop claim is just another one of your distorted distractions. I have lots of similar images, AND VIDEO TOO …. would you like to see them?
Is this photoshopped too?
How about this one?
Or this little demonic cannibal …. Apparently she doesn’t just want to kill babies, but eat them too? How charming.
Is this the kind of disgraceful liberal compassion you claim to possess in such abundance, too?
Before a certain stage, yes. So do a majority of Americans.
Get back to us after every American has the chance to answer that question.
Left always lies with their megaphone claiming “majority agree!!”
You don’t know what the majority of Americans believe about anything until each American is asked the question. Nobody knows.
Left is a criminal enterprise, weaponizing the justice department so don’t worry, they’ll arrest the guy you complain about and claim he’s a terrorist.
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.
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.
