|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 12:51:18 GMT -5
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdfIn a unanimous opinion, authored by one of the Court’s anti-abortion conservatives, the Court shot down a challenge to the FDA making morning after abortion pills easily available. This is what happens when Federalists are on the bench. They follow the Constitution even when it leads to a result they don’t like. You liberals take notice. Your side doesn’t often do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jun 13, 2024 13:15:36 GMT -5
This case was about the abortion pills, not the morning after pill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 13:40:25 GMT -5
To say that "Federalist"s follow the Constitution and "liberals" do not "often" is patently absurd and a clearly biased statement.
A more accurate description of what happened here is a 5th Circuit judge, another "Federalist" incidentally, went off the deep end and SCOTUS had to step in to correct them based on standing while laying out a path to do precisely what they seemingly ruled against in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardawg on Jun 13, 2024 13:42:14 GMT -5
Politicians have been known to cover their ass when an election is near.  |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Jun 13, 2024 14:12:42 GMT -5
Politicians have been known to cover their ass when an election is near. get outa here , what are you some kinda conspirasy theorist. thats our government your talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 13, 2024 14:20:29 GMT -5
They just wanted something to complain about. This won’t fit that bill.
Damn the SCOTUS! Why do they have to be so good at following that pesky constitution thingy?!?!🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Jun 13, 2024 14:22:29 GMT -5
Politicians have been known to cover their ass when an election is near. get outa here , what are you some kinda conspirasy theorist. thats our government your talking about. LMAO we are the most honest country in the world  |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Jun 13, 2024 14:24:50 GMT -5
get outa here , what are you some kinda conspirasy theorist. thats our government your talking about. LMAO we are the most honest country in the world you trying to trigger me  |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 14:28:31 GMT -5
This case was about the abortion pills, not the morning after pill. Its all practically the same. If it kills the fertilized egg, its an abortion pill. My point stands. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 14:40:22 GMT -5
To say that "Federalist"s follow the Constitution and "liberals" do not "often" is patently absurd and a clearly biased statement.
A more accurate description of what happened here is a 5th Circuit judge, another "Federalist" incidentally, went off the deep end and SCOTUS had to step in to correct them based on standing while laying out a path to do precisely what they seemingly ruled against in the future.
Liberal Justices historically (at least the last 70 years or so) tend to decide what they think the right moral outcome is and then restructure the law to bring about the desired outcome. Conservative Justices usually follow the law first, even if it leads to an outcome they find distasteful. |
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Jun 13, 2024 14:56:39 GMT -5
LMAO we are the most honest country in the world you trying to trigger me Come on meat you seem like a pretty thick skinned guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 15:07:07 GMT -5
To say that "Federalist"s follow the Constitution and "liberals" do not "often" is patently absurd and a clearly biased statement.
A more accurate description of what happened here is a 5th Circuit judge, another "Federalist" incidentally, went off the deep end and SCOTUS had to step in to correct them based on standing while laying out a path to do precisely what they seemingly ruled against in the future.
Liberal Justices historically (at least the last 70 years or so) tend to decide what they think the right moral outcome is and then restructure the law to bring about the desired outcome. Conservative Justices usually follow the law first, even if it leads to an outcome they find distasteful. There is no need to repeat yourself. I understood your point the first time you made it.
It's still bullshit, even with your use of the words "tend to" and "usually". For example, and in this very case, the original judge and the 5th circuit appeals court -- all Federalists or Federalist-led -- overstepped their bounds, and SCOTUS chose to step in -- by my count that's 2-1 and quite the opposite of "tend to" or "usually".
Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 13, 2024 15:12:34 GMT -5
There’s definitely some BS being spread around this thread.
Its not where you seem to think it is though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 15:14:49 GMT -5
STFU.
And it's "it's".
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 13, 2024 17:45:01 GMT -5
Its no big deal either way, to me. Just depends on witch one the autocorrect wants to throw in there, tough guy!🤪
|
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 13, 2024 19:11:43 GMT -5
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdfIn a unanimous opinion, authored by one of the Court’s anti-abortion conservatives, the Court shot down a challenge to the FDA making morning after abortion pills easily available. This is what happens when Federalists are on the bench. They follow the Constitution even when it leads to a result they don’t like. You liberals take notice. Your side doesn’t often do that. Quite a few 9-0 decisions lately |
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 13, 2024 20:19:50 GMT -5
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdfIn a unanimous opinion, authored by one of the Court’s anti-abortion conservatives, the Court shot down a challenge to the FDA making morning after abortion pills easily available. This is what happens when Federalists are on the bench. They follow the Constitution even when it leads to a result they don’t like. You liberals take notice. Your side doesn’t often do that. Quite a few 9-0 decisions lately Next up fixing Chevron |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 20:26:22 GMT -5
Liberal Justices historically (at least the last 70 years or so) tend to decide what they think the right moral outcome is and then restructure the law to bring about the desired outcome. Conservative Justices usually follow the law first, even if it leads to an outcome they find distasteful. There is no need to repeat yourself. I understood your point the first time you made it.
It's still bullshit, even with your use of the words "tend to" and "usually". For example, and in this very case, the original judge and the 5th circuit appeals court -- all Federalists or Federalist-led -- overstepped their bounds, and SCOTUS chose to step in -- by my count that's 2-1 and quite the opposite of "tend to" or "usually".
Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?
Of course I’m a Federalist. What is it exactly you believe the 5th Circuit did that overstepped their bounds? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t ban the pill. They actually reversed the trial court’s ban of the pill. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 13, 2024 20:35:04 GMT -5
The leftist judges would always vote against the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 13, 2024 20:36:03 GMT -5
Quite a few 9-0 decisions lately Next up fixing Chevron Yea, that is going away and it's about time. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 20:58:29 GMT -5
There is no need to repeat yourself. I understood your point the first time you made it.
It's still bullshit, even with your use of the words "tend to" and "usually". For example, and in this very case, the original judge and the 5th circuit appeals court -- all Federalists or Federalist-led -- overstepped their bounds, and SCOTUS chose to step in -- by my count that's 2-1 and quite the opposite of "tend to" or "usually".
Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?
Of course I’m a Federalist. What is it exactly you believe the 5th Circuit did that overstepped their bounds? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t ban the pill. They actually reversed the trial court’s ban of the pill. Surprise, surprise. Of course you are.
Now that the source of your bias is plainly exposed, your question is immaterial, and you can keep your hints.
Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 21:14:13 GMT -5
Of course I’m a Federalist. What is it exactly you believe the 5th Circuit did that overstepped their bounds? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t ban the pill. They actually reversed the trial court’s ban of the pill. Surprise, surprise. Of course you are.
Now that the source of your bias is plainly exposed, your question is immaterial, and you can keep your hints.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No no no. You don't get out of it that easily. Clearly you didn't even know what the 5th Circuit done or that they didn't ban the abortion pill in question, but instead reversed an earlier ban. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jun 13, 2024 21:18:24 GMT -5
Surprise, surprise. Of course you are.
Now that the source of your bias is plainly exposed, your question is immaterial, and you can keep your hints.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No no no. You don't get out of it that easily. Clearly you didn't even know what the 5th Circuit done or that they didn't ban the abortion pill in question, but instead reversed an earlier ban. Dude, you didn’t even know that the case wasn’t about the morning after pill, “Plan B”. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 21:21:09 GMT -5
Surprise, surprise. Of course you are.
Now that the source of your bias is plainly exposed, your question is immaterial, and you can keep your hints.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No no no. You don't get out of it that easily. Clearly you didn't even know what the 5th Circuit done or that they didn't ban the abortion pill in question, but instead reversed an earlier ban. Oh, but I do.
Silly Federalist, I never said they banned the abortion pill (or is it morning-after, it's so hard to keep track). I said they were Federalist-led and overstepped their bounds.
What I know or don't know is immaterial as the points stand on their own and you are certainly free to think what you want.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 21:25:16 GMT -5
No no no. You don't get out of it that easily. Clearly you didn't even know what the 5th Circuit done or that they didn't ban the abortion pill in question, but instead reversed an earlier ban. Oh, but I do.
Silly Federalist, I never said they banned the abortion pill (or is it morning-after, it's so hard to keep track). I said they were Federalist-led and overstepped their bounds.
What I know or don't know is immaterial as the points stand on their own and you are free to think what you want.
Thanks again.
And you can't even explain how they did. You don't know. You absolutely thought they banned the abortion pill. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 21:27:28 GMT -5
Which pill, again? Please don't project your ignorance on me. Much like your bias, I see right through it.
In the spirit of transparency, I'm surprised you admitted your membership. I thought you were going to dodge that one. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 21:31:59 GMT -5
No no no. You don't get out of it that easily. Clearly you didn't even know what the 5th Circuit done or that they didn't ban the abortion pill in question, but instead reversed an earlier ban. Dude, you didn’t even know that the case wasn’t about the morning after pill, “Plan B”. I know what the law was about. You libs apparently did not. Any pill you take that kills the fertilized egg is a "morning after" pill as far as I'm concerned. My points are still valid. You're basically arguing over whether I said its or it's. Irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 13, 2024 21:34:18 GMT -5
Which pill, again? Please don't project your ignorance on me. Much like your bias, I see right through it.
In the spirit of transparency, I'm surprised you admitted your membership. I thought you were going to dodge that one.
Translation: "You Bullfrog caught me Tarp talking out my rear and I'm trying my darndest to distract and backpedal. Because what you perceive of us liberals is correct; we're hopeless intellectually dishonest and we never admit to being wrong." |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 13, 2024 21:41:47 GMT -5
Translation: "Nothing Tarponator wrote is incorrect, but Tarponator didn't take Bullfrog's bait so he'll double down on projection when his question goes unanswered." You see, two can play that silly game, and you didn't catch shit except a bad case of an incorrect conclusion followed by an over-generalization.
Thank you for being honest about your membership, at least. I've been wondering for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jun 13, 2024 21:42:58 GMT -5
Dude, you didn’t even know that the case wasn’t about the morning after pill, “Plan B”. I know what the law was about. You libs apparently did not. Any pill you take that kills the fertilized egg is a "morning after" pill as far as I'm concerned. My points are still valid. You're basically arguing over whether I said its or it's. Irrelevant. Just figured a lawyer would have his facts straight on an”I just owned the libs” thread that you created. Also the Trump can’t be on the ballot case was 9-0. |
|
