"No problem. Just go to another state" they said.

[BuilderBob6]

It's all about state's rights.

But just try to make federal law protecting the right of women to travel across state lines and see how they really feel.

Republicans block bill to protect women who travel to other states for abortions

Senate Republicans appear split over whether women who live in states where abortion is banned should be able to travel to end pregnancies.

www.nbcnews.com

205 republicans voted against the house version.

U.S. House passes bill to protect right to travel for abortion

Lawmakers voted largely to prevent states with limited abortion from obstructing women from seeking care elsewhere.

www.reuters.com

 

[tearsforfears]

It's all about state's rights.

But just try to make federal law protecting the right of women to travel across state lines and see how they really feel.

Republicans block bill to protect women who travel to other states for abortions

Senate Republicans appear split over whether women who live in states where abortion is banned should be able to travel to end pregnancies.

www.nbcnews.com

205 republicans voted against the house version.

U.S. House passes bill to protect right to travel for abortion

Lawmakers voted largely to prevent states with limited abortion from obstructing women from seeking care elsewhere.

www.reuters.com

View embedded media

You sure do criticize republicans a lot for being an “independent”

Do you ever start threads criticizing Democrats?

 

[SKYDOG]

You sure do criticize republicans a lot for being an “independent”

Do you ever start threads criticizing Democrats?

This guy masquerades around claiming to be an independent fooling no one being a hard core Democrat.

 

[Boilermaker03]

It's all about state's rights.

But just try to make federal law protecting the right of women to travel across state lines and see how they really feel.

Republicans block bill to protect women who travel to other states for abortions

Senate Republicans appear split over whether women who live in states where abortion is banned should be able to travel to end pregnancies.

www.nbcnews.com

205 republicans voted against the house version.

U.S. House passes bill to protect right to travel for abortion

Lawmakers voted largely to prevent states with limited abortion from obstructing women from seeking care elsewhere.

www.reuters.com

View embedded media

Why is such a bill needed? What is out there that is preventing people from crossing state lines right now to get an abortion?

 

[Boilermaker03]

This guy masquerades around claiming to be an independent fooling no one being a hard core Democrat.

He's just mimicking his buddies. You know, the Lincoln project. Hopefully we don't find out he's doing the same criminal actions as they were.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Why is such a bill needed? What is out there that is preventing people from crossing state lines right now to get an abortion?

Because states are considering enacting laws against it, that's why.

Missouri wants to stop out-of-state abortions. Other states could follow.

The first-of-its-kind proposal from Missouri lawmakers would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion.

www.politico.com

 

[BoilerBiker]

time for state border walls

 

[Boilermaker03]

Because states are considering enacting laws against it, that's why.

Missouri wants to stop out-of-state abortions. Other states could follow.

The first-of-its-kind proposal from Missouri lawmakers would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion.

www.politico.com

I don't know how that can be enforceable. How would they even know that is what someone did? A state doesn't own you. Last I heard you can cross state lines without papers and you can move to another state.

 

[Peabodius]

I get the argument to give abortion back to the states. The Federal government has no business deciding such an important decision, it should be decided at the local level by the states. But why stop there? Using the same rationale, we should probably should leave it up to the counties. Heck, now that I think about it, we probably should leave it up to individual cities. Or here’s a crazy thought: maybe we should leave it up to women to govern their own bodies?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I get the argument to give abortion back to the states. The Federal government has no business deciding such an important decision, it should be decided at the local level by the states. But why stop there? Using the same rationale, we should probably should leave it up to the counties. Heck, now that I think about it, we probably should leave it up to individual cities. Or here’s a crazy thought: maybe we should leave it up to women to govern their own bodies?

Yes, I think it's a good idea we decided to follow the Constitution and let states decide. On second thought, we shouldn't follow the Constitution. We should just let anyone do whatever they want. Amazing logic...

 

[Peabodius]

Yes, I think it's a good idea we decided to follow the Constitution and let states decide. On second thought, we shouldn't follow the Constitution. We should just let anyone do whatever they want. Amazing logic...

Republicans don’t care about the Constitution. Roe was decided 7-2 and stood for 50 years until Republicans installed enough activist judges to overturn it based on their personal politics. They haven’t hidden that fact. They brag about it.

 

[tearsforfears]

Republicans don’t care about the Constitution. Roe was decided 7-2 and stood for 50 years until Republicans installed enough activist judges to overturn it based on their personal politics. They haven’t hidden that fact. They brag about it.

Lol and Democrats care about the Constitution? Why do so many of them want to get rid of the Electoral College then?

 

[Peabodius]

Lol and Democrats care about the Constitution? Why do so many of them want to get rid of the Electoral College then?

Because the electoral college favors Republicans of course. I don’t favor getting rid of the electoral college for what it’s worth. But it’s worth pointing out that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

 

[tearsforfears]

Because the electoral college favors Republicans of course. I don’t favor getting rid of the electoral college for what it’s worth. But it’s worth pointing out that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

But that would be not caring about the Constitution if I’m tracking you correctly so that means that Democrats are as bad as Republicans in your mind. What would you label Sotomayer? Is she an activist more than Kavanaugh is in your mind? I don’t exactly think “activist” when I see how Kavanaugh has sided on opinions and decisions.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Republicans don’t care about the Constitution. Roe was decided 7-2 and stood for 50 years until Republicans installed enough activist judges to overturn it based on their personal politics. They haven’t hidden that fact. They brag about it.

Republicans don't care about the Constitution? Please tell me how. Give me one example.

You do understand that Ruth Bader Ginsburg also thought Roe was a bad decision right?
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

www.law.uchicago.edu

Blackmun who wrote the Roe decision wanted Roe to have a limited effect. He wrote that he never intended Roe to give women the right to an abortion let alone one on demand. Roe was about the rights of physicians. Not women.

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

Overturning Roe has nothing to do with activism. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects abortion. What this version of the SC did was actually follow the Constitution and gave the decision back to the states.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Because the electoral college favors Republicans of course. I don’t favor getting rid of the electoral college for what it’s worth. But it’s worth pointing out that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

How does the electoral college favor Republicans? We've never had a straight popular vote for president so Republicans have never had to campaign as such. Thus, we cannot know how things would be different without the electoral college.

 

[Peabodius]

But that would be not caring about the Constitution if I’m tracking you correctly so that means that Democrats are as bad as Republicans in your mind. What would you label Sotomayer? Is she an activist more than Kavanaugh is in your mind? I don’t exactly think “activist” when I see how Kavanaugh has sided on opinions and decisions.

There have been several amendments to the Constitution. Some democrats would like to amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. That’s not going to happen, but some people would like that. Some people would also like to amend the constitution to alter the due process clause, but that’s not going to happen either. So Republicans installed activist judges (who lied and said they saw Roe as a settled precedent during their confirmation hearings) who proceeded to overturn the decision. I do t know how you could possibly compare these two things. One is making policy decisions through elected legislators, the other is making policy through installed judges.

 

[Boilermaker03]

There have been several amendments to the Constitution. Some democrats would like to amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. That’s not going to happen, but some people would like that. Some people would also like to amend the constitution to alter the due process clause, but that’s not going to happen either. So Republicans installed activist judges (who lied and said they saw Roe as a settled precedent during their confirmation hearings) who proceeded to overturn the decision. I do t know how you could possibly compare these two things. One is making policy decisions through elected legislators, the other is making policy through installed judges.

Wrong. None of these judges said they saw Roe as settled precedent. You are reading or listening to sources that are telling you lies. I challenge you to go back and point out specifically the words each justice used to claim Roe was settled precedent. Let me save you some time. They didn't do so.

The fact that you think their decision is activism shows that you are eating up the lies that are spoon fed to you. I see you didn't reply to my post just above where I proved that Roe was never supposed to be abortion on demand like the Left wants it to be today.

 

[Peabodius]

How does the electoral college favor Republicans? We've never had a straight popular vote for president so Republicans have never had to campaign as such. Thus, we cannot know how things would be different without the electoral college.

That’s fair, elections would be run differently if it were a straight popular vote. But I don’t think it’s insignificant that Republicans have won the popular vote one single time since 1988.

 

[Peabodius]

Wrong. None of these judges said they saw Roe as settled precedent. You are reading or listening to sources that are telling you lies. I challenge you to go back and point out specifically the words each justice used to claim Roe was settled precedent. Let me save you some time. They didn't do so.

The fact that you think their decision is activism shows that you are eating up the lies that are spoon fed to you. I see you didn't reply to my post just above where I proved that Roe was never supposed to be abortion on demand like the Left wants it to be today.

I stand corrected. I thought I recalled Kabanaugh saying that it was a settled case. In fact he stated that Roe v Wade had been reaffirmed several times, and that Planned Parenthood v Casey was “precedent on top of precedent”, but technically he never said it was settled. Great lawyer speak.

 

[Boilermaker03]

That’s fair, elections would be run differently if it were a straight popular vote. But I don’t think it’s insignificant that Republicans have won the popular vote one single time since 1988.

It would not shock me one bit that this trend started occurring when ballot harvesting became legal in many states.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I stand corrected. I thought I recalled Kabanaugh saying that it was a settled case. In fact he stated that Roe v Wade had been reaffirmed several times, and that Planned Parenthood v Casey was “precedent on top of precedent”, but technically he never said it was settled. Great lawyer speak.

Yes, well they don't want to be pigeon holed to where they cannot do their job. That's exactly what Democrats tried to do.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Republicans don’t care about the Constitution. Roe was decided 7-2 and stood for 50 years until Republicans installed enough activist judges to overturn it based on their personal politics. They haven’t hidden that fact. They brag about it.

Perhaps Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly 50 years ago and this court fixed it? If anybody was being activist, it was the liberal justices who decided Roe v. Wade.

You guys act like this was an unprecedented decision to overturn it. How about Dred Scott v. Sanford? Sometimes the USSC makes mistakes, and they did in Roe v. Wade conferring the right to abortion, as if that’s somehow codified in the Constitution. There is no right to abortion - legalized killing of unborn babies. Dred Scott was corrected too. Dred Scott was unconstitutional.

 

[SDBoiler1]

But that would be not caring about the Constitution if I’m tracking you correctly so that means that Democrats are as bad as Republicans in your mind. What would you label Sotomayer? Is she an activist more than Kavanaugh is in your mind? I don’t exactly think “activist” when I see how Kavanaugh has sided on opinions and decisions.

Sotomayor and Kagan are awful, truly activist justices who do not seem to understand or follow the Constitution. Ketani-Jackson will be the same.

 

[TheGunner]

Because the electoral college favors Republicans of course. I don’t favor getting rid of the electoral college for what it’s worth. But it’s worth pointing out that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

So no Democrat has come out in favor of “packing the court”?

On the contrary….not fake news….

Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Peabodius]

So no Democrat has come out in favor of “packing the court”?

On the contrary….not fake news….

Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.

www.nbcnews.com

That’s some nice red meat for the base, but I would be shocked if they go through with it. And not out of some moral high ground. They would be idiots to make court packing a thing right before Republicans most likely take back the house and senate.

 

[BSIT]

There have been several amendments to the Constitution. Some democrats would like to amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. That’s not going to happen, but some people would like that. Some people would also like to amend the constitution to alter the due process clause, but that’s not going to happen either. So Republicans installed activist judges (who lied and said they saw Roe as a settled precedent during their confirmation hearings) who proceeded to overturn the decision. I do t know how you could possibly compare these two things. One is making policy decisions through elected legislators, the other is making policy through installed judges.

Glad Republicans led the charge over Democrats objection to amend the Constitution outlawing slavery

 

[TheGunner]

That’s some nice red meat for the base, but I would be shocked if they go through with it. And not out of some moral high ground. They would be idiots to make court packing a thing right before Republicans most likely take back the house and senate.

While I understand the “red meat” comment, do you truly believe there aren’t any Democrats who would vote in favor of packing the court? (even given the 6 months timer on them losing both houses)

I think the far left is too naive to consider the ramifications and/or see it as there last option of staying in control. Quickly pack the court and undo the Roe ruling and that would be Joes “big” win. Then if they can do the unthinkable and maintain power, the Dems could get DC/Puerto Rico statehood by abolishing the filibuster and then we have Democrat Utopia.

if not, the Democrats won’t have a chance to change Supreme Court for likely 8-12 years and a lot of fresh Republican faces in the SC during that time.

 

[BuilderBob6]

While I understand the “red meat” comment, do you truly believe there aren’t any Democrats who would vote in favor of packing the court? (even given the 6 months timer on them losing both houses)

I think the far left is too naive to consider the ramifications and/or see it as there last option of staying in control. Quickly pack the court and undo the Roe ruling and that would be Joes “big” win. Then if they can do the unthinkable and maintain power, the Dems could get DC/Puerto Rico statehood by abolishing the filibuster and then we have Democrat Utopia.

if not, the Democrats won’t have a chance to change Supreme Court for likely 8-12 years and a lot of fresh Republican faces in the SC during that time.

You guys need to come up with some new material. The Democrats want to take over the universe.......and as proof you have trotted out packing the court and statehood since before the last election. The Dems have had numerical control in Congress and the WH......and have done NOTHING to advance either issue. The link you posted was from over a year ago......and you fail to mention that Biden is on the record as being against packing the court.

You can't stop trying to scare the masses, even when there's no way the Dems can "quickly" pack the court.

 

[BSIT]

You guys need to come up with some new material. The Democrats want to take over the universe.......and as proof you have trotted out packing the court and statehood since before the last election. The Dems have had numerical control in Congress and the WH......and have done NOTHING to advance either issue. The link you posted was from over a year ago......and you fail to mention that Biden is on the record as being against packing the court.

You can't stop trying to scare the masses, even when there's no way the Dems can "quickly" pack the court.

Biden is on record saying a lot of things that he has changed his position on

 

[SIBoiler2]

Simple. If having access to abortions is your orimary driving force in life just move to a state that is wide open.

 

[SDBoiler1]

You guys need to come up with some new material. The Democrats want to take over the universe.......and as proof you have trotted out packing the court and statehood since before the last election. The Dems have had numerical control in Congress and the WH......and have done NOTHING to advance either issue. The link you posted was from over a year ago......and you fail to mention that Biden is on the record as being against packing the court.

You can't stop trying to scare the masses, even when there's no way the Dems can "quickly" pack the court.

You’ve got to be kidding. The Senate is (has been) 50/50 since the 2020 election. If the Ds actually had the votes to jam through killing the filibuster, eliminating the electoral college, making Puerto Rico and DC states, and packing the court they would do so.

For the sake of our Republic, thank God they don’t have the votes to do this stuff. You act as if it’s completely up to the Ds right now - that’s not even close to reality and you know it.

 

[TheGunner]

You guys need to come up with some new material. The Democrats want to take over the universe.......and as proof you have trotted out packing the court and statehood since before the last election. The Dems have had numerical control in Congress and the WH......and have done NOTHING to advance either issue. The link you posted was from over a year ago......and you fail to mention that Biden is on the record as being against packing the court.

You can't stop trying to scare the masses, even when there's no way the Dems can "quickly" pack the court.

The conversation was brought up by others stating …..that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

But a big chunk of “the people opposed” to the electoral college is the far left Democrats, many of whom have actively pressed for court packing. It’s not a “Boogieman” as you like to try to point out…it’s no different than the college bailout debate that people said would not ever happened when Bernie pushed as a Presidential candidate…yet that point has been entertained by Biden.

Fact is, if it weren’t for Sinema and Manchin…the court packing would have happened last month.

 

[BuilderBob6]

The conversation was brought up by others stating …..that people opposed to the electoral college want to eliminate it through legislation, not through activist judges.

But a big chunk of “the people opposed” to the electoral college is the far left Democrats, many of whom have actively pressed for court packing. It’s not a “Boogieman” as you like to try to point out…it’s no different than the college bailout debate that people said would not ever happened when Bernie pushed as a Presidential candidate…yet that point has been entertained by Biden.

Fact is, if it weren’t for Sinema and Manchin…the court packing would have happened last month.

No, that isn't a fact. While Manchin and Sinema were forced to take positions on other issues, the Dems never did so with either issue.

Again, Biden is against it, so it's going nowhere. I'm sure people on your side will continue with saying he isn't.

Biden Remains Opposed to Court-Packing Despite Roe Reversal, White House Confirms | National Review

Prominent Democrats renewed their calls for court-packing after Roe was reversed last week.

www.nationalreview.com

The reality is both sides have made the court a political issue. The rules need to be changed regarding the terms and appointments of justices to take part of it out of the hands of politicians and luck.

But the pubs and McConnell sure didn't have any problem playing politics with court appointments when they were in charge. Stop acting like it's only the other guys.

 

[TheGunner]

No, that isn't a fact. While Manchin and Sinema were forced to take positions on other issues, the Dems never did so with either issue.

Again, Biden is against it, so it's going nowhere. I'm sure people on your side will continue with saying he isn't.

Biden Remains Opposed to Court-Packing Despite Roe Reversal, White House Confirms | National Review

Prominent Democrats renewed their calls for court-packing after Roe was reversed last week.

www.nationalreview.com

The reality is both sides have made the court a political issue. The rules need to be changed regarding the terms and appointments of justices to take part of it out of the hands of politicians and luck.

But the pubs and McConnell sure didn't have any problem playing politics with court appointments when they were in charge. Stop acting like it's only the other guys.

RE Luck. The Democrats are mad because RBG wanted a woman President to choose her replacement. RBG “gambled” that Hillary would win and the Democrats “fortunes” were flushed down the toilet. Instead America voted to elect Trump President and he filled Scalia’s seat, etc.

the court balance went from a potential 4-5 Democrats favor to 7-2 Republican favor because America elected Trump. And now the Democrats want term limits or anything they can do to change the judicial political landscape.

Elections matter. It’s not “luck.”

 

[BuilderBob6]

RE Luck. The Democrats are mad because RBG wanted a woman President to choose her replacement. RBG “gambled” that Hillary would win and the Democrats “fortunes” were flushed down the toilet. Instead America voted to elect Trump President and he filled Scalia’s seat, etc.

the court balance went from a potential 4-5 Democrats favor to 7-2 Republican favor because America elected Trump. And now the Democrats want term limits or anything they can do to change the judicial political landscape.

Elections matter. It’s not “luck.”

No, it used to be luck. Now both sides are orchestrating the appointments.

The Democrats are rightly mad because McConnell said no new justices in an election year and did a 180 when it benefited his party. It was as blatant as it gets. You look stupid when you ignore it.

 

[SDBoiler1]

No, it used to be luck. Now both sides are orchestrating the appointments.

The Democrats are rightly mad because McConnell said no new justices in an election year and did a 180 when it benefited his party. It was as blatant as it gets. You look stupid when you ignore it.

You leave out an important detail - who controlled the Senate when Obama put up Merrick Garland? Who controlled the Senate when Trump put up Amy Coney Barrett?

 

[SCBoiler1]

BuilderBob6.

I don't come on this board much because its dominated by folks who believe that if you don't see things their way you must not be very smart. Its confirmed by 8 or 10 of their internet buddies agreeing with them. In their world they believe that they are the smarter ones.

They ignore the fact that Biden won voters with a post graduate degrees by 35% and graduates with a 4 year degree or more by 24%. Trump one the "high School or less" crowd by 15%. You can scroll through the data linked:

Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory

A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...

www.pewresearch.org

Somehow it doesn't quite square with the idea that the Democrats are the ones winning because their constituents are so dumb. The question they should be asking is why are all of these smart people voting for democrats? If I were them, I'd at least have the intellectual curiosity to try and understand why.

 

[tearsforfears]

BuilderBob6.

I don't come on this board much because its dominated by folks who believe that if you don't see things their way you must not be very smart. Its confirmed by 8 or 10 of their internet buddies agreeing with them. In their world they believe that they are the smarter ones.

They ignore the fact that Biden won voters with a post graduate degrees by 35% and graduates with a 4 year degree or more by 24%. Trump one the "high School or less" crowd by 15%. You can scroll through the data linked:

Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory

A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...

www.pewresearch.org

Somehow it doesn't quite square with the idea that the Democrats are the ones winning because their constituents are so dumb. The question they should be asking is why are all of these smart people voting for democrats? If I were them, I'd at least have the intellectual curiosity to try and understand why.

You can be quite educated and still quite dumb. Do you know which party overwhelmingly runs the education system? Do you think people with an art history degree (what do you do with that?) are really smart? They can tell you who painted something on an easel but can’t find a real world job and have no idea what they’re voting for. Voting Democrat is typically an emotional pull for those people who don’t really understand the real world.

There’s an intellectually curious opinion for you and you’re asking Bob about why people vote Democrat when he’s a self-proclaimed “independent” so I’m not sure you’re targeting the right audience with your post.

 

[BuilderBob6]

You leave out an important detail - who controlled the Senate when Obama put up Merrick Garland? Who controlled the Senate when Trump put up Amy Coney Barrett?

Wtf are you talking about? Are you really going to try and justify what he did?