[B0ycey]

Your inability to respond on point has made that painfully clear.

It's not subjective.

Well you haven't made an argument why an opinion isn't subjective. If there is a legal challenge to be made then I suggest the Democrats bring it forward. Until then it was a request to withdraw a law (ironic).

[late]

Well you haven't made an argument why an opinion isn't subjective.

So you didn't understand what I said.

SC judge is supposed to be a good judge, and a good judge doesn't treat the law like a rugby scrum. They also aren't supposed to cheat, and using procedural tricks is most definitely cheating.

"Sotomayor reserved her final paragraph to reprimand the court itself, telling her colleagues the court they embody “should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

[B0ycey]

So you didn't understand what I said.

SC judge is supposed to be a good judge, and a good judge doesn't treat the law like a rugby scrum. They also aren't supposed to cheat, and using procedural tricks is most definitely cheating.

"Sotomayor reserved her final paragraph to reprimand the court itself, telling her colleagues the court they embody “should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

This is just a rant. The justices chose not to intervene with the new law which is actually up to them given they can chose what cases to look into. They however did leave it open to repeal. I am guessing they did that so Democrats can actually argue why this is under federal jurisdiction and the Republicans can argue why it isn't. Your argument actually can be used against you given this is a law which is being asked to be quashed without challenge. Perhaps you didn't see the irony but I did. But as I said, the whole debate on abortion is subjective as proven by the fact this issue is splitting down party lines. That is just a fact. Whether there is a legal challenge due to the Roe VS Wade ruling, well that is up to the Democrats to actually bring that argument to the SCOTUS. Currently they haven't done that, they asked for the Texas law to be quashed and as such I don't think you can blame the SCOTUS actually.

[late]

This is just a rant.

But as I said, the whole debate on abortion is subjective as proven by the fact this issue is splitting down party lines. That is just a fact.

Hardly.

You never answered my question, when did science become subjective? I have another one, when did religious arguments become acceptable in a court of law?

One last one, when will you do more than repeat BS?

"Sotomayor reserved her final paragraph to reprimand the court itself, telling her colleagues the court they embody “should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

[B0ycey]

Hardly.

You never answered my question, when did science become subjective? I have another one, when did religious arguments become acceptable in a court of law?

One last one, when will you do more than repeat BS?

I am just telling you what happened. It isn't my fault you are partisan. I like the Democrats, but I am not clouded in supporting them and will say things how they are. The SCOTUS didn't make a ruling. I don't know how else I can say this better than that. It is up for the Democrats to appeal.

As for Subjective, the subject of abortion is subjective. Why? Because even though you support it, someone else will not. There is no objective proof to prove which one of you is correct. Why? Because it is an opinion.

"An opinion is neither right or wrong. It can only be an opinion."

[late]

There is no objective proof to prove which one of you is correct.

Medical science distinguishes a fetus from a person.

Which is just common sense.

Enjoy your ignorance.

[B0ycey]

Medical science distinguishes a fetus from a person.

Which is just common sense.

Enjoy your ignorance.

What does that have to do with abortions? Like seriously? Whether or not a fetus is classed as a human under scientific classification, doesn't determine whether abortions should be allowed or not. Abortions aren't even a right. You weren't born with an abortion. It is a service provided to you if it is legal. Although I can only assume you are referring to Roe Vs Wade rather than the term Subjective in any case. Well the SCOTUS wasn't asked to make a ruling over Roe Vs Wade. They were asked to quash a law due to it being unconstitutional. They didn't make a ruling. It is up to the Democrats to appeal that. I know I am repeating myself, but you really are that obtuse.

[AFAIK]

I hate the abortion debate in USA. One group screams, "I'm pro-abortion because I'm a selfish bitch!" whilst the other shrieks, "I'm anti-abortion because I'm a selfish bastard!"

Improve your discourse.

As much as I hate Phyllis Schlafly at least she could articulate and argue her points, which somehow stood up to scrutiny despite being strawmen.

[late]

What does that have to do with abortions? Like seriously? Whether or not a fetus is classed as a human under scientific classification, doesn't determine whether abortions should be allowed or not. Abortions aren't even a right. You weren't born with an abortion. It is a service provided to you if it is legal. Although I can only assume you are referring to Roe Vs Wade rather than the term Subjective in any case. Well the SCOTUS wasn't asked to make a ruling over Roe Vs Wade. They were asked to quash a law due to it being unconstitutional. They didn't make a ruling. It is up to the Democrats to appeal that. I know I am repeating myself, but you really are that obtuse.

Getting pretty much everything wrong is no accident.

"Once is an accident, twice, coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

[B0ycey]

Getting pretty much everything wrong is no accident.

"Once is an accident, twice, coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

But you have been wrong six times.

Seriously just let it go to appeal. That is ultimately why the SCOTUS (who can choose what cases they take anyway) let this go. Becauae ultimately this is due to an ammendment to Roe vs Wade and what a viable fetus is.

[late]

But you have been wrong six times.

Seriously just let it go to appeal.

That is ultimately why the SCOTUS (who can choose what cases they take anyway) let this go.

Because ultimately this is due to an amendment to Roe vs Wade and what a viable fetus is.

You never even responded on point.

Read Sotomayer's dissent, it's not clear any part of this will be taken up by the SC.

Hardly, this has a chance to get them what they want without having to make themselves look like hacks.

This is due to sleazy politics that have no place in a courtroom, any courtroom.

[B0ycey]

This is due to sleazy politics that have no place in a courtroom, any courtroom.

I don't deny this is a political move. I doubt any politician give a fuck whether some poor immigrant gets an abortion or not. I suspect if one of them got their mistresses pregnant they will organise an abortion no matter what. They do however need to please a demographic of the supporters which are the ProLife group. And this will got back to the SCOTUS on appeal. And they will take it. And they will take it because the heartbeat clause argument may well overturn the objective of Roe vs Wade. It shouldn't. But it is a pro Republican SCOTUS after all.

[Unthinking Majority]

For republicans this has nothing to do with babies just as their Second Amendment rhetoric has nothing to do with guns. It is entirely about building a minority party in racist states that is powerful enough to rule the country.

I think this is a false conspiracy theory. The GOP is a horrendously bad party, but have you considered the possibility that they and those that vote for them may actually care about saving unborn babies from being killed and that they also value their gun rights?

The idea that conservatives are primarily motivated by "controlling women's bodies" is just nonsense. There's no other policy the GOP supports that involves controlling women's bodies, they don't care if women choose to get a boob job or nose job or cut off all their limbs, they only care when their actions kill babies.

Do you also think many GOP are anti-mask and anti-vaccine because they secretly want millions of Americans to die, or do they believe those things because they care about personal liberty?

[Unthinking Majority]

The 10k bounty for abortioners within this law is pretty odd.

[late]

I think this is a false conspiracy theory.

It's inaccurate, not false.

Most politicians know better, but they want to keep their jobs, and their lives...

That they cater to crazies doesn't change the dynamics. Put it to you this way, insurrections don't happen by accident.

[late]

The 10k bounty for abortioners within this law is pretty odd.

It's odd in a number of ways, which one did you have in mind?

[Rancid]

The 10k bounty for abortioners within this law is pretty odd.

I'm against this law, but this 10k bounty makes think I should become a bounty hunter.

Man, how easily I compromise my values for money.

[ckaihatsu]

Do you also think many GOP are anti-mask and anti-vaccine because they secretly want millions of Americans to die, or do they believe those things because they care about personal liberty?

Anti-maskers are ludicrous, obviously, because they're politicizing something that's inherently *biological* (the coronavirus), and medical (public health) -- *not* political.

[Unthinking Majority]

It's inaccurate, not false.

Most politicians know better, but they want to keep their jobs, and their lives...

That they cater to crazies doesn't change the dynamics. Put it to you this way, insurrections don't happen by accident.

You think the conservative politicians who are pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and believe the Democrats committed voter fraud have fundamentally different beliefs than the conservative people who voted for them?

I'm sure some of these politicians are simply pandering for votes, but I also have to believe that many of them also share these beliefs.

There's also a big difference between some violent backwoods neo-Nazi fringe nut and a run-of-the-mill conservative who believes in pro-life and gun rights and vaccine/mask liberties.

[Unthinking Majority]

Anti-maskers are ludicrous, obviously, because they're politicizing something that's inherently *biological* (the coronavirus), and medical (public health) -- *not* political.

Yes anti-maskers are illogical, but if the government uses laws to force people to require masks and have vaccine passports that is 100% political. They're illogical because they value minor personal liberties over the health and safety of themselves and others.

My point is that while some of us might think they're dumb, or simply disagree with them on abortion, they aren't evil. Though the 10k de facto bounties on abortioners in Texas is a pretty gross law.