Preserve, protect and defend

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Indeed. I am as consistent as ever. Wanna be a dick? Let’s go. Want to have a reasonable discussion? Cool.

[Chuck Naill]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

I was speaking of the general “you”, but fair point.

Well, you wrote “you guys” and then “your team” which is kind of a stretch that you meant something else.

I voted for Reagan, Bush (both) , Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Biden. The last two were voting against Trump. If Liz Cheney, Romney, or John Kasich run or run as independents, I’d be interested.

[dneal]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

I was speaking of the general “you”, but fair point.

Well, you wrote “you guys” and then “your team” which is kind of a stretch that you meant something else.

I voted for Reagan, Bush (both) , Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Biden. The last two were voting against Trump. If Liz Cheney, Romney, or John Kasich run or run as independents, I’d be interested.

I conceded your point. You got a first down. Why are you still arguing about it?

[Chuck Naill]

Not sure if this belongs here,
“ Mr. Chansley, who had appeared in his shaman costume at several pro-Trump rallies before Jan. 6, was also one of the first defendants to blame Mr. Trump for his own behavior at the riot”.

[Chuck Naill]

“Jacob Chansley, who stormed onto the Senate floor in face paint and a horned hat, accepted a deal under which federal prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 41 to 51 months in prison.”

[Chuck Naill]

That’s a long time for your service to Trump. If DT gets elected again, maybe he’ll be pardoned.

[kazoolaw]

Biden on constitutionality:
"this...law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe vs. Wade...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...texas-law-sb8/
Does this statement align with the Biden quote in Post 1?

[Chuck Naill]

Yes

[kazoolaw]

Yes

How so?

[Chuck Naill]

Yes

How so?

Precedent!

[kazoolaw]

Does it matter to the question if there is no constitutional right to perform abortions?

[Chuck Naill]

Abortion is legal and so the right to perform is legal.

[kazoolaw]

Would you say, then, that Biden's comments are much ado about nothing?

[Chuck Naill]

If abortion is Constituional and Biden is sworn to uphold the Constituon, then he has more than a passing preference. It is very likely he is pro life like me.

I have very little understanding about legal matters, but I do know Stare decisis is how judges rule. Of course, challenges are possible and Biden was trying the law in order to help people. I do not think challenging the law is unconstituional. If you were to get a divorce, most likely how the judge would rule would follow precedent, but you could challage that precedent if you had evidence for why it could not be followed.

In the case of abortion, most US citizens probably want to have abortion legal. For Texas to do what they did goes against also how the SCOTUS has moved in the past. Also, in 1973 decision hinged on the unborn not being human and thus was not protected by the 14th Ammendment. Medical science has advanced and we know that a newly fertilized egg has it's own DNA. If you rememerber Scott Peterson, he was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Abortion is a messy issue. Rather than try to overturn the law, I have alway thought informed consent to a better option and for adoption to be more easy. And, I have read that under Obama and Biden abortions were actually less because of the greater availabilty of birth control.

[dneal]

Chuck, there is the problem of Marbury vs Madison. The judiciary has the power to decide what is and isn’t in accordance with the law - The Constitution being the foundation of it. Defending the proper power of the judiciary is defending The Constitution by defending the system it establishes. If kazoolaw is correct in his characterization of The President’s remarks, his conclusion does then follow. Perhaps the approach for the opposition is to attack the characterization. If the assumption is false, it matters not how sound the logic is that follows.

I’ve watched the various sides argue the Texas case, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court only ruled on a motion for a stay (denying it) and the case is still in a lower court.

I have issues with the Texas law’s enforcement, which appears to rely on civil suits rather than criminal actions.

[Chuck Naill]

We know that abortion is legal and we know the Texas action prevents a constitutional right or makes it more difficult. Texas is doing similarly with suffrage rights. So in these instances, the it appears the Constitution is being challenged. How is it wrong for Biden to challenge and the Texas Republicans right. Perhaps that’s my point.

[kazoolaw]

i've been too vague in asking the question.
Regarding the eviction moratorium Biden said he didn't care that it was unconstitutional because it would protect people for a little while, until the Supreme Court overturned it.
Regarding abortion, Biden declared the law is, in his opinion, unconstitutional [though the Supreme Court explicitly did not address that issue] even though it would protect lives as long as it is in effect.

[dneal]

We know that abortion is legal and we know the Texas action prevents a constitutional right or makes it more difficult. Texas is doing similarly with suffrage rights. So in these instances, the it appears the Constitution is being challenged. How is it wrong for Biden to challenge and the Texas Republicans right. Perhaps that’s my point.

Abortion is still legal in Texas. Just not after 6 weeks. While I'm not sure of the practicality of that, and that it will lead to problems (because 6 weeks is often not enough time to recognize pregnancy).

Legal challenges are part of the process, and not necessarily a bad thing. It reinforces some law and overturns other. Without legal challenges, Plessy v Ferguson would still be in force.

[kazoolaw]

"If they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way. " (emphasis added)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...19-pandemic-3/
Given his attitude toward the Constitution what form will getting them out of the way take?

[Chuck Naill]

Ironically, the ones demanding their freedom not to have to get a vaccine are often the ones wanting to control females bodies.