- 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: Strong on Second Amendment, Strongly Pro Choice
Posted on 8/24/19 at 4:25 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 8/24/19 at 4:25 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
quote:person Wrong. Start there.
So what is a living organism that has human dna yet isn't human??? Your argument is stupid. Only humans have human dna.
1
Posted on 8/24/19 at 6:28 am to texridder
quote:
You don't want to answer my above post because it shows you are a jackass. So, you just try to weasel out and slime away
Says the person who was a dishonest weasel on his very first post
Save your troll attempts for someone who doesn't already know what you are.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 6:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You can't, obviously.
Keep trying that one, though. Maybe your bullshite will work with someone else...
Lulz, you're such a little bitch.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 7:23 am to texridder
quote:at this point, I almost hate to walk into the weeds of legal analysis on a thread that is divolved into childish name-calling.quote:Privacy.
If WHAT is a "fundamental right?" I assume you reference either "privacy" or "abortion."
I honestly think that the circuit court in Roe made a better decision in basing its analysis upon the ninth amendment than Scotus made in relying upon the 14th. It just reached the wrong conclusion.
Obviously, there exist rights which are not enumerated in the United States Constitution, because the constitution was not designed to enumerate an all-inclusive list of rights. The 9A makes this clear. The question then becomes whether federal courts have any business adjudicating such rights. I submit that article one does not give the federal government any authority to legislate in those areas and thus that article 3 does not give federal courts jurisdiction in those areas. Result? It is it matter exclusively for the state legislatures and state courts.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 9:40 am
Posted on 8/24/19 at 8:56 am to davyjones
quote:
it could be what I want it to be
No, it couldn't.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 8:57 am to omegaman66
quote:
person
quote:
So what is a living organism that has human dna yet isn't human??? Your argument is stupid. Only humans have human dna.
How do some of you get through life being this ignorant?
Posted on 8/24/19 at 9:41 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:jacking with them about the fact that they do not understand your phrasing is entertaining, but three or four pages is enough. Please just explain it to them.quote:How do some of you get through life being this ignorant?
So what is a living organism that has human dna yet isn't human??? Your argument is stupid. Only humans have human dna.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 9:44 am to baybeefeetz
Sucking what amounts to a seaslug out of a woman isn't murder so I don't really care about abortion.
A rabbit or a deer is far more aware and intelligent than a fetus and I don't want to ban anyone from killing those either.
A rabbit or a deer is far more aware and intelligent than a fetus and I don't want to ban anyone from killing those either.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 8/24/19 at 10:51 am to AggieHank86
Who is "them/they," and to what "phrasing" do you refer?
You aren't assigning one poster's specific commentary on a narrowed topic to a larger group of people without basis, are you? Because that would be ineffectual in your apparent mission to achieve a sense of superiority.
You aren't assigning one poster's specific commentary on a narrowed topic to a larger group of people without basis, are you? Because that would be ineffectual in your apparent mission to achieve a sense of superiority.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 10:55 am to bmy
quote:
Sucking what amounts to a seaslug out of a woman isn't murder so I don't really care about abortion.
Not sure if serious. Are you implying that all abortions involve what amounts to a "seaslug" as the "target" of the procedure?
Posted on 8/24/19 at 11:00 am to Nguyener
quote:facts
You have the right to own a gun. You don't have a right to kill someone with it.
You have the right to get pregnant. You shouldn't have the right to kill someone after it.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 11:59 am to davyjones
quote:The posters he is jacking with.
Who is "them/they,"
quote:I recommended that he cease, but I am not going to ruin his fun.
to what "phrasing" do you refer?
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:01 pm to AggieHank86
Well shite. 10-4.
My bad.
My bad.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
jacking with them about the fact that they do not understand your phrasing is entertaining, but three or four pages is enough. Please just explain it to them.
I'm not explaining anything to anyone who claims their views of personhood are scientific fact.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Then a state court is going to be the final arbiter on whether that state's statute conflicts with the Constitution? That doesn't seem workable.
I submit that article one does not give the federal government any authority to legislate in those areas and thus that article 3 does not give federal courts jurisdiction in those areas. Result? It is it matter exclusively for the state legislatures and state courts.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:26 pm to texridder
quote:Why would the USConst (or a federal court) play any role in the development of a common law right with no federal implications?quote:Then a state court is going to be the final arbiter on whether that state's statute conflicts with the Constitution? That doesn't seem workable.
I submit that article one does not give the federal government any authority to legislate in those areas and thus that article 3 does not give federal courts jurisdiction in those areas. Result? It is it matter exclusively for the state legislatures and state courts.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:28 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Maybe I should re-think that. If I were a woman, I wouldn’t want to give up any rights, because frick losing my rights.
So women have the right to murder but men don't?
Sexism at its finest folks
.Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:An example, please.
Why would the USConst (or a federal court) play any role in the development of a common law right with no federal implications?
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:41 pm to AggieHank86
Id say the U.S. Constitution is the top of the pyramid that provides the building blocks for all fundamental rights of those who are subject to it, be they express or by way of judicial interpretation. It reigns supreme under the Supremacy Clause, and any question or controversy involving a fundamental right must be litigated in the federal system....ultimately. *Or at least can be. There will always be a "loser" who likely seeks further redress, and the federal judiciary is the end of the line in this area.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:52 pm to davyjones
quote:
Not sure if serious. Are you implying that all abortions involve what amounts to a "seaslug" as the "target" of the procedure?
All? No. Most? Absolutely.
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News