@techsouth saidThe election had been over for two months. Numerous cases had been started by Republican officials and the Trump campaign in various States and every single one had been dismissed.
If there was no fraud, then no amount of additional investigation would have uncovered fraud. Trump was wanting the election certification be paused to go back to the states for more investigation. If what you're saying is true, that would have changed nothing and Biden would have been sworn in on schedule Jan 20th, 2021.
And you are somehow certain there was zero frau ...[text shortened]... in charge of elections wither they did their job correctly or not, and they will assure us they did.
The proceedings on January 6th are essentially ministerial in nature. They are not to relitigate claims of fraud already rejected in the states. Every State had certified its results by that time in a lawful manner. The election was over.
@techsouth
Says the puppet of Trump. He actually SAID, maybe Pence SHOULD be hanged. How many presidents in all of US history EVER said that? That would be exactly ONE.
He wanted Pence to acknowledge the legality of those fake electors who would have given the battleground states to him.
THAT is called a COUP.
And continuing to this day, with red states trying to pass laws allowing them to kick out legal electors and install their own puppets voting the way they are told.
And I have no doubt you would condone that.
And THAT would be the end of democracy here in the US.
What you zombies could care less about is our reputation overseas which is now in the dumps, what nation can trust us now? Not many, and if the zombies get their agenda finished it will be the ending of NATO and the UN.
I hope you CHOKE on your pyrrhic victory.
@sonhouse said"Women controlling their bodies" is one narrative.
@techsouth
People are now fighting to keep the idea that women can control their own bodies and not be under government control which is what killing Roe V Wade is all about. SCTOUS is now just an arm of the religious ultraright and has left impartiality behind in the dust.
There is that and there is also how we are viewed overseas, which I am sure you could care less a ...[text shortened]... men getting pregnant, you would be SCREAMING to high heaven if abortion rights were taken from YOU.
Another narrative is that abortion is murder.
If someone believes that abortion is murder, it seems like it would be their job to oppose it even if it were unpopular. I certainly wouldn't support killing an infant 1 day after birth because he was unwanted. It doesn't seem that different to kill an child 1 day before he'd be born. And BTW: US abortion laws are more liberal than most other places in the world. This latest change will probably make us more like the rest of the world rather than less like it.
Ironic that the left wants to force Covid vaccines to control people's bodies.
Also, it is ironic that in more and more places it is becoming illegal to merely offer psychological counseling to someone who wants to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction. We're not talking pills, nor operations. In some places even adults cannot pay for counseling to help them resist the temptations related to same-sex attraction (and I expect before long it won't even be legal to council a male minor that he is not a girl if he is tempted to feel that way).
From where I'm sitting, it sure seems like Democrats are the ones who want more control over people.
Just for reference, consider this recent announcement: https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20220615/biden-boosts-lgbtqi-protections-bans-conversion-therapy
Odd that under current law, federal funds can be used to surgically remove functioning genitalia from a healthy adult, but federal funds cannot be used to council that person to accept the sex he or she was born with. And you think Republicans want to control people?
Is it your belief that left leaning SC justices dispassionately follow the law whether or not that aligns with their personal preferences and that right leaning judges just want to force their will on the people and have no interest in law?
I'm not here to argue against you if that's what you believe. But you should at least be aware that many on the right see it as just the opposite.
@mott-the-hoople saidRoe v Wade was a SC decision.
you are correct, if you are talking about YOUR comment, scotus rulings are not subject to change. What do you fools think? scotus will go back in session and reverse their ruling?
And it is a decision, not a "ruling". Your Trumper Justices aren't kings.
1 edit
@techsouth
That bit about murder is a minority in the US but the religious right could care less about majorities, they would try to make abortion illegal if only one person hated it and the rest are ok with it.
Like I and many other folks have said, if MEN were the ones getting pregnant there would be no debate about abortion and abortion would be allowed in the NINTH month of pregnancy.
There would be just about ZERO debate as to abortion being compared to murder.
It is the fundamental agenda that the religious right wants to control the lives of women and THAT is their goal. The murder deal is just an excuse.
What gets me is when the anti abortionists win some battle and force the girl to give birth, they drop that girl and her baby like a hot rock and go on to the next pyrrhic victory, no matter what is wrong with the baby, no matter if mother and daughter starve to death, no big deal because THEY stopped that abortion.
@sonhouse saidI think we're talking about abortion. I've not met a single person that wants all laws returned to what they were in the 19th century.
@techsouth
Funny how 70% of American's don't want us going back to laws of the 19th century but the zombie republicans have been working that for the last 40 years and finally got their desire but that is only the start, ban on ALL states abortion rights are next. Before or after that is the coming ban on even contraceptives, next single sex marriage.
Right back where yo ...[text shortened]... y itself and make sure they rule forever.
Yep, you are dancing in the street over this for sure.
You're premise is so absurd, I can't even respond seriously.
@sonhouse saidWhether the minority or not, I'd posit that of those that want abortion to be illegal, the majority of them have taken that position because they think abortion is murder.
@techsouth
That bit about murder is a minority in the US but the religious right could care less about majorities, they would try to make abortion illegal if only one person hated it and the rest are ok with it.
Abortion aside, if I were the only person in the US that thought killing a grown person were immoral, I'd still want it to be illegal.
@techsouth saidThen why should the SCOTUS limit the scope of our rights to what was thought proper to State legislatures in 1868 as it did in Dobbs?
I think we're talking about abortion. I've not met a single person that wants all laws returned to what they were in the 19th century.
You're premise is so absurd, I can't even respond seriously.
@no1marauder saidThey better hurry
There are a number of possible political responses like Federal legislation codifying abortion rights or adding new members to the SCOTUS.
@vivify saidIt's possible. Are you prepared to wait 49 years??
Yes they are. SCOTUS changed changed a previous Supreme Court ruling. There's nothing stopping them from changing it again.
@techsouth saidEven conceding that is true, so what? Vegans think the slaughter of animals is "murder" but few advocate that the State use its penal powers to ban the eating of meat.
Whether the minority or not, I'd posit that of those that want abortion to be illegal, the majority of them have taken that position because they think abortion is murder.
Abortion aside, if I were the only person in the US that thought killing a grown person were immoral, I'd still want it to be illegal.
As the SCOTUS majority said "Abortion presents a profound moral question." In a society supposedly founded on respect for individual rights and limited government, it is for individuals to answer such questions and not the State to force them to answer it in the way it, not them, wishes. Of course, there are times when freedom to do so must be limited because it might invade the rights of others, but not even the Dobbs majority was willing to arbitrarily grant the unborn rights of any kind.
@no1marauder saidThe Dobbs decision is 213 typed pages.
Then why should the SCOTUS limit the scope of our rights to what was thought proper to State legislatures in 1868 as it did in Dobbs?
I think you've missed some nuance.
@earl-of-trumps saidMight not have to; I think commentators are underestimating the effect this will have on the mid-terms.
They better hurry
Granted, there will probably have to be some kind of improvement in the economy esp. in inflation but that seems probable.