Mitch McConnell speech - yada-yada-yada

[JonC]

Laws do not completely stop crime, but they slow it down. The rape law does not stop all rapes. Should we legalize rape?

I do not see how this compares. Abortion was practiced and was legal until the mid 1800's. I am not sure anti-abortion laws addressed the real issue.

 

[Reynolds]

I do not see how this compares. Abortion was practiced and was legal until the mid 1800's. I am not sure anti-abortion laws addressed the real issue.

The real issue is taking an innocent human life is murder. One who murders the innocent should be executed.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree....and that is a DNC talking point.

It come down to Murder for convenience sake!

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not see how this compares. Abortion was practiced and was legal until the mid 1800's. I am not sure anti-abortion laws addressed the real issue.

You mean millions of babies were killed back then also?

 

[JonC]

You mean millions of babies were killed back then also?

We do not have the numbers. Abortion was legal and there were several pills on the market (I do not know if they worked). Medical abortions were affordable (sometimes people used payment plans). But there was about a 25%death rate for the mother even in hospital settings.

We know they were frequent. Probably more due to social image more than financial issues. "Temporarily indisposed" was often an euphemism for "recovering from an abortion".

 

[777]

Why would more abortions take place with Biden elected?

he will make the taxpayers pay for them, including for illegals and if anything is free to them, they'll have more of it. And I don't see the big deal about abortion standards of the nineteenth century - slavery was enshrined by law then, should we return to that since the country was founded on slavery.

By the way, death rates for anything were far higher back then and it was a crime for abortion past quickening. And it was illegal throughout for slaves and now it's pushed on their descendants.

 

[JonC]

he will make the taxpayers pay for them, including for illegals and if anything is free to them, they'll have more of it. And I don't see the big deal about abortion standards of the nineteenth century - slavery was enshrined by law then, should we return to that since the country was founded on slavery.

By the way, death rates for anything were far higher back then and it was a crime for abortion past quickening. And it was illegal throughout for slaves and now it's pushed on their descendants.

Yes, the death rate was higher. It should be illegal.

But my point is more that abortion cannot be stopped by legislation.

Taxpayers certainly should not have to pay for abortions.

 

[JonC]

@777 ,

I never considered this before, and do not know the answer (perhaps you do) -

The appointment of the Justices was presented as a move to ban abortions (by Republicans and Democrats).

But laws banning abortion were based on common law (not Constitutional law). It seems the most that could be accomplished in regards to federal law would be to put the decision back in the states hands (to reverse R vs W) as abortions themselves were never considered unconstitutional.

Am I missing something?

 

[Reynolds]

Yes, the death rate was higher. It should be illegal.

But my point is more that abortion cannot be stopped by legislation.

Taxpayers certainly should not have to pay for abortions.

My point is murder of adults can not be stopped by legislation either.

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem is per the US Constitution it is the Judicial system that determines the constitutionally of the election. The only move left for Trump to win is to destroy the Constitution. It is a catch 22. The GOP wanted originalists on the Supreme Court but this prevents a ruling in Trumps favor given the process of this election.

No, the Originalists should have listened to the case showing that states actually violated the Constitution by changing election processes without the legislative bodies.

 

[JonC]

No, the Originalists should have listened to the case showing that states actually violated the Constitution by changing election processes without the legislative bodies.

The problem is that the US Constitution gives that decision to the Justices. I guess this is by design as the nation continues regardless. But it is not Constitutional for the people to demand the Originalists listen to the case.....that is why they are appointed for life and not elected by the people.

My point is that there are two things here, and they are not in line. One is fairness. There was fraud and the election was most likely stolen at least in two states (I am not sure if the fraud would have made a difference, but it may have). But the second issue is the U.S. Constitution. It has set up processes and they are actually being followed, even if it is unfair.

An Originalist has to accept Biden as their lawfully and constitutionally elected President. They have no choice because to refrain from doing so is to trash the U.S. Constitution.

To remedy this election laws would have to change. I doubt any change to election laws under the DNC would be a good thing, though.

 

[JonC]

My point is murder of adults can not be stopped by legislation either.

I agree. I do believe that abortion should be illegal. I just do not believe that it tackles the evil of abortion.

People do not kill other people based on the legality of murder.

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem is that the US Constitution gives that decision to the Justices. I guess this is by design as the nation continues regardless. But it is not Constitutional for the people to demand the Originalists listen to the case.....that is why they are appointed for life and not elected by the people.

My point is that there are two things here, and they are not in line. One is fairness. There was fraud and the election was most likely stolen at least in two states (I am not sure if the fraud would have made a difference, but it may have). But the second issue is the U.S. Constitution. It has set up processes and they are actually being followed, even if it is unfair.

An Originalist has to accept Biden as their lawfully and constitutionally elected President. They have no choice because to refrain from doing so is to trash the U.S. Constitution.

To remedy this election laws would have to change. I doubt any change to election laws under the DNC would be a good thing, though.

And they have neglected their appointed duty by not hearing the case because they are cowards. The Constitution is not being followed no matter how hard you wish to try and argue that it is being followed. States violated the Constitution.

So yes, Biden will be President, but not because the Constitution was followed.

Election laws do not need to be changed. Election laws (already in place) NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. They were not in 2020. Therefore, he was not a lawfully elected president because the law was not followed.

 

[JonC]

And they have neglected their appointed duty by not hearing the case because they are cowards. The Constitution is not being followed no matter how hard you wish to try and argue that it is being followed. States violated the Constitution.

So yes, Biden will be President, but not because the Constitution was followed.

Election laws do not need to be changed. Election laws (already in place) NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. They were not in 2020. Therefore, he was not a lawfully elected president because the law was not followed.

I think that you are wrong here. The U.S. Constitution does not leave it up to the citizens to interpret the Constitution but gives this authority to the courts. If the Justices determine the case has no merit and refuses to hear the cases then they are following the Constitution because the Justices and not the people are charged with interpreting the Constitution.

That is why it is so important that we appoint Originalists. But at the same time, that is why their decision is Constitutional.

 

[Reformed1689]

I think that you are wrong here. The U.S. Constitution does not leave it up to the citizens to interpret the Constitution but gives this authority to the courts. If the Justices determine the case has no merit and refuses to hear the cases then they are following the Constitution because the Justices and not the people are charged with interpreting the Constitution.

That is why it is so important that we appoint Originalists. But at the same time, that is why their decision is Constitutional.

The court did not say the case did not have merit. In fact, the one I am specifically referencing is in regard to PA and the court said they would hear it AFTER the Inauguration. What good does that do?

 

[JonC]

The court did not say the case did not have merit. In fact, the one I am specifically referencing is in regard to PA and the court said they would hear it AFTER the Inauguration. What good does that do?

They do not have to say whether or not the case has merit (in fact, they are not supposed to say whether or not a case has merit). Again, they can decide whether or not to hear a case, and even when to hear a case. Your argument seems to be that the U.S. Constitution gives them too much power, and I may agree with you if that is the case. But it is still the power that the U.S. Constitution gives them.

Perhaps it was too much of an assumption with our founding fathers that these justices could act apolitically.

 

[Reformed1689]

They do not have to say whether or not the case has merit (in fact, they are not supposed to say whether or not a case has merit). Again, they can decide whether or not to hear a case, and even when to hear a case. Your argument seems to be that the U.S. Constitution gives them too much power, and I may agree with you if that is the case. But it is still the power that the U.S. Constitution gives them.

Perhaps it was too much of an assumption with our founding fathers that these justices could act apolitically.

No, you are missing the point. My beef with the Court is that they are WAITING to hear the case that would have direct impact on the election until after the Inauguration. That's wrong.

 

[JonC]

No, you are missing the point. My beef with the Court is that they are WAITING to hear the case that would have direct impact on the election until after the Inauguration. That's wrong.

What does the U.S. Constitution mandate in terms of the Court hearing a case?

(Not a rhetorical question....I'm asking)

 

[Yeshua1]

No, you are missing the point. My beef with the Court is that they are WAITING to hear the case that would have direct impact on the election until after the Inauguration. That's wrong.

They are kicking it down the road!

 

[Reformed1689]

What does the U.S. Constitution mandate in terms of the Court hearing a case?

(Not a rhetorical question....I'm asking)

What I am saying Jon is the Court made a political calculation to "not do damage." They aren't supposed to consider the damage (in this case the potential to overturn an election), they are supposed to consider the laws as written.

And actually the Constitution does not give the Court the right to not hear a case. You will not find that anywhere in Article 3. In fact, that didn't happen until 1925.