Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
How did you obtain my pic? :)
LOL!
Actually it matters quite a bit. You se the oveririding decision in Scott was that Taney and friends decided that the Constituion forced slavery onto Missouri when Missouri wanted to expand the rights of blacks. Sound familiar?
Actually it matters quite a bit. You se the oveririding decision in Scott was that Taney and friends decided that the Constituion forced slavery onto Missouri when Missouri wanted to expand the rights of blacks. Sound familiar?
Gosh, you have recorded me too. It must be via those thingies being put into drugs now by the feds, or so Drudge tell us. God how I love this site, and those like you who make it lovable. LOL.
not a trick question, a simple one and you gave the wrong answer. States are free to expand rights for all, equally, no pig is more equal than the next pig. Simple.
Mom has a right to life and so does Junior, inside the womb or not.
They still have Arkansas mucked up from the Civil war split between the Northern and Southern parts of the state.
We have a yankee section to this day.
It will be the English equivalent of murder. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have told you it was.
You don't need me to do your research for you.
And BTW, it wasn't "what I determined", it was from proper research.
It has nothing to do with me or you.
Right, whatever you say.
For example, a word in Hebrew cannot possibly mean the exact same thing as a word coined in English many hundreds or even a couple thousands of years apart.
Although I understand the argument, don't ask me to buy it hook line and sinker. I cannot imagine words like these to be identical in meaning. And close gets you no cigars when dealing with religion.
These translation bots and what not for religious text give you the closest word in English. The precise definition always varies and Hebrew is not the most descriptive of language.
That word may very well mean kill without permission, or without blessings of the elder which is a far cry from murder in the legal sense.
It is this sort of thing that really gets me going. So best to leave it be for this topic.
I am a FReeper! :-)(am am naturally divisive and impossible)And, it is late.
Don't believ me, ask Norma McCorvey and any number of liberal legal scholars. Hell, ask Torie.
I personally want it overturned because I believe unborn babies are entitled to the right to life and because courts taking making new law out of whole cloth simply poisons the public square resulting in enmity and culture wars. Inevitably, the animus rises when activist courts make bad law based o their own mores, or sometimes Europes, rather than letting the matters be decided where they should be, in the public square and thorugh our elected representatives.
The mechanism to overtunr bad law is two fold, either through a strong Cngress or by states expanding rights and testing those rights in SCOTUS while moving public opinio away from idiotic opinions like Roe.
Its all happening and sooer or later you'll say, uhhuh.
I can't believe I just wasted my time on this post.
LOL
So now you can attack me if you like. It seems to make you feel better.
Knock yourself out!
I cuss like a sailor!
I will tell you why I think why. Because it was unprincipled - an abuse of judicial power - judicial overreach - a manufacturing of one right out of thin air which trumps another, the another being a right with considerably more settled tradition as one which the states had a right to protect as they saw fit. And because it of course has poisoned the public square, poisoned the process of selecting and confirming judicial nominees, deflected us from fairly considering other important issues because we are imprisoned by the judicial overreach, and now are each emblazoned with a scarlet letter on our chest, one way or the other, and thus the decision, Roe v Wade, from a public policy standpoint, has proven a disaster, no matter what you view, or how you cut it. What is so horrible about thrashing this issue out at the ballot box?
What is so noble about the toxic penumbra of this abuse of judicial power, this pall, this traducing of the democratic spirit, and enervating of the American spirit? It's evil, period, in its practical effect. About that, this aging man can bear witness.
Since Roe, the States have lost more than I ever thought possible.
They tried to fix something they saw as broken.
One thing certain, if it is repealed, we will find out if it was indeed broken or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.