Neil Gorsuch nominated to Supreme Court to fill Scalia seat

2233boys · Feb 2, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
And abortion!

Unlike most pro-lifers, I am not just anti abortion.

Genghis Khan · Feb 2, 2017

2233boys said:
Unlike most pro-lifers, I am not just anti abortion.

I read this sentence about 10 times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

2233boys · Feb 2, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
I read this sentence about 10 times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

Pro Life doesn't mean that you just oppose Abortion.

Most people who claim to be Pro Life, are in fact just anti abortion/pro birth

Smitty · Feb 2, 2017

townsend said:
There were some law professors that thought Obama should have been able to place Garland on the court after the senate refused to give him a hearing. In essence saying the refusal to advise and consent was a forfeiture of that right. But Obama was a constitutional scholar, and I don't think he believed that.

That's a silly argument.

IMO the nomination of Garland still stands and Congress must vote yes or no.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama has no right to have his nomination approved. He could nominate liberal after liberal and the Senate could vote down all of them until he nominated a conservative if they wanted. That is the Senate's constitutional right just like Obama has the constitutional right to nominate.

Where the Republicans got this wrong was that they should have simply voted no. They had the votes. The hypocrisy is not from all this talk about how it's unfair to let Obama have three nominees -- the hypocrisy is that they were holding out and would have quickly approved the moderate Garland had Clinton won the election, fearing if they rejected him, Clinton would appoint someone MORE liberal.

They should give Garland his vote, and vote him no.

Trump, if he has any conscience of the Constitution,'would demand a no vote on Garland and only then a vote on his nominee Gorsuch.

townsend · Feb 2, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
That's a silly argument.

IMO the nomination of Garland still stands and Congress must vote yes or no.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama has no right to have his nomination approved. He could nominate liberal after liberal and the Senate could vote down all of them until he nominated a conservative if they wanted. That is the Senate's constitutional right just like Obama has the constitutional right to nominate.

Where the Republicans got this wrong was that they should have simply voted no. They had the votes. The hypocrisy is not from all this talk about how it's unfair to let Obama have three nominees -- the hypocrisy is that they were holding out and would have quickly approved the moderate Garland had Clinton won the election, fearing if they rejected him, Clinton would appoint someone MORE liberal.

They should give Garland his vote, and vote him no.

Trump, if he has any conscience of the Constitution,'would demand a no vote on Garland and only then a vote on his nominee Gorsuch.

That makes sense. We really need to figure out how to fix the senate, ever since democrats pulled their trick with reconciliation we've seen more and more tyranny of the majority take hold. I don't know how you shut that Pandora's box, but something has to change.

But seriously, do you think Trump has even read the constitution?

Smitty · Feb 2, 2017

townsend said:
That makes sense. We really need to figure out how to fix the senate, ever since democrats pulled their trick with reconciliation we've seen more and more tyranny of the majority take hold. I don't know how you shut that Pandora's box, but something has to change.

But seriously, do you think Trump has even read the constitution?

I doubt he's read it, but his lack of concern for it without having read it is only slightly more terrifying than Obama's lack of concern for it, having been a professor of the subject. In fact the latter might be more terrifying.

Also I give two shits about Democrat's complaints about Republican obstruction because they laid the groundwork for this during the Bush administration. Republicans did not obstruct Bill Clinton the same way, until he broke the law and lied under oath.

townsend · Feb 2, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
I doubt he's read it, but his lack of concern for it without having read it is only slightly more terrifying than Obama's lack of concern for it, having been a professor of the subject. In fact the latter might be more terrifying.

Also I give two shits about Democrat's complaints about Republican obstruction because they laid the groundwork for this during the Bush administration. Republicans did not obstruct Bill Clinton the same way, until he broke the law and lied under oath.

Republicans had a witch hunt going for him for years. LT himself attested to watergate being a boondoggle. (It was actually the key piece of information that changed how I saw the Clintons), they finally found something after a decade of probes and made a huge to do about it. Funny that Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich have both been forced to resign jobs in disgrace since then.

Clinton also gave more than he got. He backed down, and sold out liberals, and almost never stood up to Republicans.

Now that being said, as much as there were plenty of criticisms to be applied to W, he did work with congress when Dems took control. It's why they passed the GI bill putting me through college at this moment.

Genghis Khan · Feb 2, 2017

2233boys said:
Pro Life doesn't mean that you just oppose Abortion.

Most people who claim to be Pro Life, are in fact just anti abortion/pro birth

You oppose abortion?

Btw, I never mentioned pro-life. And I think saying there's an incongruity between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty is a crutch for criticizing opposing views. There's nothing inherently incongruous about those two stances.

As far as I know, pro-life and pro-choice are labels that specifically arose from stances relating to abortion. Even if you mean you are pro-life by the widest possible interpretation of the term, it's still not incongruous with supporting the death penalty. You can believe someone, say Jeffrey dahmer, forfeited his right to live by intentionally and repeatedly infringing upon other people's right to live. And you would be entirely consistent with being pro-life. No unborn baby has ever done any such thing.

BipolarFuk · Feb 2, 2017

Kbrown said:
There's a lot of political noise surrounding it, but Gorsuch has written in no uncertain terms that human life is inherently valuable, so I am pleased.

I'm sure he doesn't mean the death penalty.

L.T. Fan · Feb 2, 2017

townsend said:
That makes sense. We really need to figure out how to fix the senate, ever since democrats pulled their trick with reconciliation we've seen more and more tyranny of the majority take hold. I don't know how you shut that Pandora's box, but something has to change.

But seriously, do you think Trump has even read the constitution?

Why would you even make a statement like that? Oh never mind. I sometimes forget.

townsend · Feb 2, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
You oppose abortion?

Btw, I never mentioned pro-life. And I think saying there's an incongruity between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty is a crutch for criticizing opposing views. There's nothing inherently incongruous about those two stances.

As far as I know, pro-life and pro-choice are labels that specifically arose from stances relating to abortion. Even if you mean you are pro-life by the widest possible interpretation of the term, it's still not incongruous with supporting the death penalty. You can believe someone, say Jeffrey dahmer, forfeited his right to live by intentionally and repeatedly infringing upon other people's right to live. And you would be entirely consistent with being pro-life. No unborn baby has ever done any such thing.

The hardest thing to get over with the pro-life and pro choice debate is the language. Unless an abortion is super late term, that is not an unborn baby.

Like if you think it's sacred or whatever that's cool, but sperm and eggs aren't zygotes, which aren't embryos, which aren't fetuses, which aren't babies.

Jiggyfly · Feb 2, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
That's a silly argument.

IMO the nomination of Garland still stands and Congress must vote yes or no.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama has no right to have his nomination approved. He could nominate liberal after liberal and the Senate could vote down all of them until he nominated a conservative if they wanted. That is the Senate's constitutional right just like Obama has the constitutional right to nominate.

Where the Republicans got this wrong was that they should have simply voted no. They had the votes. The hypocrisy is not from all this talk about how it's unfair to let Obama have three nominees -- the hypocrisy is that they were holding out and would have quickly approved the moderate Garland had Clinton won the election, fearing if they rejected him, Clinton would appoint someone MORE liberal.

They should give Garland his vote, and vote him no.

Trump, if he has any conscience of the Constitution,'would demand a no vote on Garland and only then a vote on his nominee Gorsuch.

That makes sense.

Cotton · Feb 2, 2017

townsend said:
The hardest thing to get over with the pro-life and pro choice debate is the language. Unless an abortion is super late term, that is not an unborn baby.

Like if you think it's sacred or whatever that's cool, but sperm and eggs aren't zygotes, which aren't embryos, which aren't fetuses, which aren't babies.

Sperm and eggs aren't what is in play when a woman has an abortion. It's ridiculous you would even say that.

2233boys · Feb 2, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
You oppose abortion?

Btw, I never mentioned pro-life. And I think saying there's an incongruity between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty is a crutch for criticizing opposing views. There's nothing inherently incongruous about those two stances.

As far as I know, pro-life and pro-choice are labels that specifically arose from stances relating to abortion. Even if you mean you are pro-life by the widest possible interpretation of the term, it's still not incongruous with supporting the death penalty. You can believe someone, say Jeffrey dahmer, forfeited his right to live by intentionally and repeatedly infringing upon other people's right to live. And you would be entirely consistent with being pro-life. No unborn baby has ever done any such thing.

Yes I hate abortion, I don't think it will ever change though.

I find saying you are pro life, and then saying you support
* the death penalty,
* interventionist wars,
* ending the Chips program, SS, Medicare, Medicaid
* giving billions in tax breaks to the rich while our schools, infrastructure and the like are in shambles
* corporate leaders making 100 of times more than their workers,
* among other things

decidedly hypocritical

Cotton · Feb 2, 2017

2233boys said:
Yes I hate abortion, I don't think it will ever change though.

I find saying you are pro life, and then saying you support
* the death penalty,
* interventionist wars,
* ending the Chips program, SS, Medicare, Medicaid
* giving billions in tax breaks to the rich while our schools, infrastructure and the like are in shambles
* corporate leaders making 100 of times more than their workers,
* among other things

decidedly hypocritical

It is not hypocritical at all. A convicted felon put to death made the poor decision that put them in that situation. A baby has never had a chance to make a decision at all. Comparing the two is dishonest and a reach.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 2, 2017

townsend said:
The hardest thing to get over with the pro-life and pro choice debate is the language. Unless an abortion is super late term, that is not an unborn baby.

Like if you think it's sacred or whatever that's cool, but sperm and eggs aren't zygotes, which aren't embryos, which aren't fetuses, which aren't babies.

I think you and I have gone back and fourth on this a good amount. But it's pretty simple, if the child is able to survive outside of the mother it's a baby. If not, it's not a baby. That's my simple way of looking at it.

2233boys · Feb 2, 2017

Iamtdg said:
It is not hypocritical at all. A convicted felon put to death made the poor decision that put them in that situation. A baby has never had a chance to make a decision at all. Comparing the two is dishonest and a reach.

That is your opinion. Life is life, you are either pro life or you are not.

Cotton · Feb 2, 2017

2233boys said:
That is your opinion. Life is life, you are either pro life or you are not.

I absolutely do not agree.

2233boys · Feb 2, 2017

Iamtdg said:
I absolutely do not agree.

That's fine, I am sure there is something we would agree on.

townsend · Feb 2, 2017

Cowboysrock55 said:
I think you and I have gone back and fourth on this a good amount. But it's pretty simply, if the child is able to survive outside of the mother it's a baby. If not, it's not a baby. That's my simple way of looking at it.

I'm in agreement with that.

If something's viable, or even near viable that's a different conversation.

But 92% of abortions happen before the 13th week, so the abortion=dead unborn babies has always felt extremely disingenuous.

Neil Gorsuch nominated to Supreme Court to fill Scalia seat

Not So New Member

The worst version of myself

Not So New Member

DCC 4Life

Banned

DCC 4Life

Banned

The worst version of myself

Demoted

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Not So New Member

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Super Moderator

Not So New Member

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Not So New Member

Banned