- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hard no on Barbara Lagoa
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:18 pm to GEAUXmedic
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:18 pm to GEAUXmedic
Are those questions from when she was appointed to a judgeship? For a lower court, that is the correct answer, not the Supreme Court though.
0
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:18 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
There are legal ways to erode Roe v. Wade without completely overturning it.
This bears repeating. The posters calling anyone disagreeing with OP filth are blinded by their opinion. There is no way a SCOTUS appointment would get through Senate sharing that opinion. That horse has left the barn. It will require more subtle methods to erode it.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:19 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Correct - she was answering the question as a nominee for a court lower than the Supreme.
No reason to exclude her for saying she would abide by the precedent set by a higher court.
It was not only a proper answer, it was pragmatic in the context of the process she was going through at the time. The Democrats were attempting a gotcha, and she prudently told them there was no reason to even go there.
No reason to exclude her for saying she would abide by the precedent set by a higher court.
It was not only a proper answer, it was pragmatic in the context of the process she was going through at the time. The Democrats were attempting a gotcha, and she prudently told them there was no reason to even go there.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:20 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
Roe v Wade was made up law. Had no legal basis. So precedent, as applied to a fallacy, means nothing.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:21 pm to Ollieoxenfree99
quote:
The right has got to let abortion GO.
We should’ve just let the Nazis keep their concentration camps.
We let China keep theirs.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:22 pm to GEAUXmedic
Repubs are scared because no one wants roe gone. There will have to be some clever maneuvering here.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:22 pm to GEAUXmedic
You are misreading this completely. She is saying that as a Federal Court judge, she would faithfully follow decided SC precedent. As a conservative should.
As a Justice, she would not be bound by this.
As a Justice, she would not be bound by this.
This post was edited on 9/20/20 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:23 pm to GEAUXmedic
What else would you expect her to say under questioning for a lower court judgeship?
"I won't follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when I hear cases in my lower court position. I will use my lower court position to overrule the Supreme Court's decision."
If she's on the Supreme Court THEN she can use her position to overturn a previous SC decision.
Dumb.
"I won't follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when I hear cases in my lower court position. I will use my lower court position to overrule the Supreme Court's decision."
If she's on the Supreme Court THEN she can use her position to overturn a previous SC decision.
Dumb.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:25 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
You are misreading this completely. She is saying that as a Federal Court judge, she would faithfully follow decided SC precedent. As a conservative should.
A conservative textualist who will follow the constitution is a good choice.
I’d need more context to form an opinion on Lagoa specifically, but simply saying as a lower court judge you are bound by Supreme Court precedent isn’t a bad thing in a candidate.
This post was edited on 9/20/20 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:27 pm to Huge Richard
quote:
no one wants roe gone.
Most of the people who want row gone are killed before they have the chance to argue.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:38 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
That doesn't mean she would or wouldn't overturn it while on the Supreme Court.
I'd rather not risk another Sandra Day O'Connor; the answers in the OP sound like Sandra Day O'Connor and the main reason we have endured the 50+yr abomination of a law.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:39 pm to Nguyener
Stupid comparison as those were all living humans with free will.
Even until a child is 18, they are not free.
Even until a child is 18, they are not free.
This post was edited on 9/20/20 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:40 pm to GEAUXmedic
did you miss the ",for lower court justices" caveat?
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:40 pm to IMATIGERFAN
quote:good thing she was probably just saying that to trick the liberals
Good thing it’s not up to you.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:42 pm to Ollieoxenfree99
quote:
The right has got to let abortion GO.
The left has to quit using R vs. W as their battle standard. It's as if when they have no platform, they keep falling back to this.
This post was edited on 9/20/20 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:43 pm to tonydtigr
Don't disagree, but it is one of their top issues.
There should be a compromise to let the states decide.
There should be a compromise to let the states decide.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:58 pm to GEAUXmedic
They all say that. No one is going to go in the confirmation process saying - yeah, I’m going to overturn a bunch of shite.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 6:00 pm to Ollieoxenfree99
Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 6:05 pm to Ollieoxenfree99
quote:
The right has got to let abortion GO.
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
Posted on 9/20/20 at 6:07 pm to GEAUXmedic
All I care about is 2A. Evil whores will be evil whores and the key to ending abortion is cutting the federal funding to it.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News