Roe is dead
- Thread starter NJlonghorn
- Start date
WTF
"
Romerian Logan claimed that BiQing Liu, the manager of Panda Express at Newport Centre Mall in Jersey City, made insulting comments about her pregnancy and suggested that she have an abortion after finding out she was pregnant.
Logan claimed that after she complained to higher-ups, Liu exacted retribution on her, making her workplace more unpleasant by giving her jobs that were more difficult because of her pregnancy.
"
Panda Express manager ‘assaulted’ 18-year-old pregnant cook after she refused to get abortion, lawsuit alleges
"
Romerian Logan claimed that BiQing Liu, the manager of Panda Express at Newport Centre Mall in Jersey City, made insulting comments about her pregnancy and suggested that she have an abortion after finding out she was pregnant.
Logan claimed that after she complained to higher-ups, Liu exacted retribution on her, making her workplace more unpleasant by giving her jobs that were more difficult because of her pregnancy.
"
Panda Express manager ‘assaulted’ 18-year-old pregnant cook after she refused to get abortion, lawsuit alleges
I found this interesting. Despite the attempt by the author, she couldn’t come up with sensible argument why abortion should be considered constitutional.
Rethinking the Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe at the Supreme Court
Rethinking the Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe at the Supreme Court
That's awesome!
Trump is right here but many Trump hating conservatives plus non-thinking pro-lifers can’t help themselves. With the rabid leftists embedded in DC, the best you can hope is to take the issue to a different forum (i.e., the states). From there, you can do counter insurgency to win in a few places and play the long game. I don’t know why this is so hard to accept for some avid pro-lifers.
This is exactly right. There are purple states where this issue alone is enough to swing elections to democrats. It is poor strategy for Graham, et al. to continue to push a national narrative on this issue. Take the win and save our powder for down the road on RvW.
Trump sounds reasonable from the states rights issue. But on the ground, when women (including formerly pro-life women) get pregnant and can't get an abortion, then they will do what Tip O'Neill described as "All politics are local." So the shift might come towards the left. I hope the pro-lifers are enjoying their idealistic binge on this because they will ultimately lose politically and then what? Abortion on demand AND totalitarian socialists controlling each branch of the government.
That could happen on this issue alone because the rabid right-wing Christians are as scary as the Squad can be.
That's what I think.
That could happen on this issue alone because the rabid right-wing Christians are as scary as the Squad can be.
That's what I think.
Speaking of states' rights and this...
Arizona Supreme Court rules that a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable
Arizona Supreme Court rules that a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable
I think Trump is doing it for cynical reasons and never cared about abortion, but he is doing what's politically smart and constitutionally correct. The issue belongs at the state level. There is no basis for a federal abortion ban, and we need to stop pushing for one.
From a political standpoint, I understand the surprise, but from a legal perspective, it's not at all surprising. The age of a law has no bearing on its validity.
The confusion is more that a 15-week ban from March 2022 wasn't ruled to supersede. Also gotta love Dems:
"
Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said moments after the ruling that she would not enforce the law.
“Let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state,” Mayes said in a statement, adding that the decision was “unconscionable” and “an affront to freedom.”
"
Democrats don't care about law. They are the law.
I haven't read the actual court opinion, but whether or not it supercedes depends on the drafting of the new law. If the Legislature did a poor enough job in drafting it, this outcome can happen. Their legislative counsel would have to suck really badly at his or her job, and the actual legislators passing the law (many of whom are probably lawyers) would have to be dumb enough to miss the screwup, but stranger things have happened.
Disrespect for the rule of law is a core principle of Democratic politics and the jurisprudence surrounding it. It starts with their judicial philosophy which openly ignores legal text when it doesn't suit their agenda, and that trickles down to their prosecutors (DAs and AGs) who refuse to enforce laws that don't suit their agenda or ambitions even in the absence of court intervention.
I got a feeling for the former when I started reading actual court opinions that liberal commentators tended to celebrate. I noticed that they put almost all of their emphasis on broad, vague principles that sound nice and had almost no discussion or analysis of the actual law that's supposed to govern the case at hand. After seeing that in countless opinions, it became clear that they simply don't view the law as binding on their judges.
I got a feeling for the latter when the California AG refused to defend the state's ban on gay marriage in court, and no one cared. Regardless of what one thinks of gay marriage bans, if you're the AG, standing by the laws of your state is your friggin' job. If you don't want to enforce it, you need to resign. And of course, this mentality has led to the party electing DAs all over the country who have announced policies of blanket non-enforcement of clearly applicable laws when they don't suit the party's agenda or political narratives.
Both are indicative of the broader principle of the supremacy of people with the "right" agenda over the written law legitimately enacted by the people's representatives.
Last edited:
I think all these Liberal AG's and others are inspired by Dr. King's discussion of unjust laws in his famous letter from the Birmingham jail. They all want to be like him. Here's how Dr. King defined an unjust law:
"Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregated a false sense of inferiority. …..
Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because they did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of convenient methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote despite the fact that the Negro constitutes a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured? …..
There are some instances when a law is just on its face but unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the first amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust. I hope you can see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law."
But we know what it truly was about; laws prohibiting blacks from things that were allowed to whites. In that regard, the existing laws of the Jim Crow era where clearly unjust. That is my strong opinion. So how does society go about changing unjust laws? It's pretty damn difficult. March over bridges, assemble, endure abuse and in the end, get yourself killed.
So instead of all that, we have self-appointed little Dr. King's who define laws as unjust even if they are applicable to everyone. They look at stats and decide it's unjust if the protected political class is in the majority of committing the crime.
One thing though about Dr. King. He didn't want people who angered easily in his demonstrations, which he called Direct Action. He listed four points for each individual to consider and perform to be a part of Direct Action:
1) Identify if an unjust act or law has happened
2) Negotiate
3) If negotiation fails, then purify oneself (meaning you must be mentally able to endure abuse and not be provoked)
4) Direct action, meaning the same type of resistance as was performed by Ghandi: Non-violent resistance.
These Liberals who are using judges to ignore laws and DA's to ignore law breaking believe they are doing God's work. It takes many months or years of failure before they will change their ways.
"Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregated a false sense of inferiority. …..
Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because they did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of convenient methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote despite the fact that the Negro constitutes a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured? …..
There are some instances when a law is just on its face but unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the first amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust. I hope you can see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law."
But we know what it truly was about; laws prohibiting blacks from things that were allowed to whites. In that regard, the existing laws of the Jim Crow era where clearly unjust. That is my strong opinion. So how does society go about changing unjust laws? It's pretty damn difficult. March over bridges, assemble, endure abuse and in the end, get yourself killed.
So instead of all that, we have self-appointed little Dr. King's who define laws as unjust even if they are applicable to everyone. They look at stats and decide it's unjust if the protected political class is in the majority of committing the crime.
One thing though about Dr. King. He didn't want people who angered easily in his demonstrations, which he called Direct Action. He listed four points for each individual to consider and perform to be a part of Direct Action:
1) Identify if an unjust act or law has happened
2) Negotiate
3) If negotiation fails, then purify oneself (meaning you must be mentally able to endure abuse and not be provoked)
4) Direct action, meaning the same type of resistance as was performed by Ghandi: Non-violent resistance.
These Liberals who are using judges to ignore laws and DA's to ignore law breaking believe they are doing God's work. It takes many months or years of failure before they will change their ways.
I hope these liberals believe in states rights because folks are leaving CA, NY, and IL in droves. In 2032, GOP won’t have to win a single Midwest blue state to win the presidency. Expect a GOP senate more often than not and the same for the House.
If activists want to resist a law they deem unjust, they're free to do so. Lawyers are free to challenge such laws in court. But the officials charged to enforce the laws or those hired to do so are not, because their duty is the law. A judge's job is to apply the law to cases, and a prosecutor's job is to pursue people who break the law, and they don't get to be selective about any of it. If they don't want to do that, they need to quit their jobs.
Perhaps you are right, but I find this line amusing in the context of this thread -
"An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. "
with the born imposing their will upon the unborn that is not binding on the born.
Last edited:
Totally agree. The primary reason I'm a Conservative at heart is not because I resist change but because I don't trust politicians to use proper judgement. We see it all the time. They bend and ignore the laws. So because of their obsessive ambitions, we must have a benchmark that will never erode. And if they want to change that benchmark, then they can make new laws and amend the Constitution. There is a process for change and those who ignore it are the enemy.
Last edited:
Interesting article. Daughter of "Jane Roe" is alive and doing well. She is Shelley Lynn Thornton and her mother "Jane Roe" was actually Norma McCorvey.
Daughter of 'Jane Roe,' the woman behind the landmark abortion case, comes to terms with her identity
Daughter of 'Jane Roe,' the woman behind the landmark abortion case, comes to terms with her identity
Huh?
"
Even Republican senatorial candidate Kari Lake, who as a gubernatorial candidate in 2022 called the 1864 ban "a great law that's already on the books" while condemning abortion as "the ultimate sin," said she was dismayed by the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. "This is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people," she said in a statement that she posted on X. "I oppose today's ruling."
"
How is a great law on the books one that the court should overturn? And worse, 'should be determined by each state?' That's what just happened!
Critics of the Arizona Supreme Court's abortion ruling seem confused about what judges are supposed to do
"
Even Republican senatorial candidate Kari Lake, who as a gubernatorial candidate in 2022 called the 1864 ban "a great law that's already on the books" while condemning abortion as "the ultimate sin," said she was dismayed by the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. "This is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people," she said in a statement that she posted on X. "I oppose today's ruling."
"
How is a great law on the books one that the court should overturn? And worse, 'should be determined by each state?' That's what just happened!
Critics of the Arizona Supreme Court's abortion ruling seem confused about what judges are supposed to do
Last edited:
To be fair, would anyone miss him had he been aborted? I feel dirty here.
At least he's honest. I think most people on the left, if forced to really deal with the issue rather than obfuscate with falsehoods and diversions would reach the same conclusion. (Of course, they never have to deal with it in public discourse.) They know it's ending a human life. They're just ok with it because they resent the idea of sexual activity having a potentially negative consequence or leading to some kind of responsibility. In their minds if you want "f**k and duck" or "cleave and leave," you should have an absolute right to do that no matter the consequences to anyone - even if a totally innocent human being has to die for it.
Pretty easy to explain. Kari Lake is a slimy politician who's flip-flopping on the issue because she's trying to win a Senate seat.
Recent Threads
-
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 11K
- West Mall
-
Obama staged the Charlottesville clash?
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 15
- West Mall
