ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 10
< 1234 5678 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>SCOTUS Strikes Down LA Abortion Ban
RodeoPants2 09:16 AM 06-29-2020
Remember when Susan Collins believed Kavanaugh when he said Roe was settled law?


Originally Posted by :
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s liberals in striking down the law, saying it was required by the court’s decision overturning a Texas law in 2016.
“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote in concurring with the decision. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4c6_story.html
[Reply]
NinerDoug 02:13 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
This case converted me to your side.
Why?
[Reply]
Baby Lee 02:16 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by LiveSteam:
You married her.
I just fucked her multiple times.
:-)

Originally Posted by Cyuck in Wichita:
"I mean, who would’ve thought? I never would’ve suspected that my wife would carry on in such a manner with a pudgy nerd, even if it was just online…especially considering that I’m twice the man he is in every category.

[Reply]
patteeu 02:20 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Why?
He changes his 4 year old vote for the sake of stare decisis over an issue of limited impact on society. It’s not like we’ve built up a complex system of interdependence based on the 4 year old ruling.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 02:22 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
He changes his 4 year old vote for the sake of stare decisis over an issue of limited impact on society. It’s not like we’ve built up a complex system of interdependence based on the 4 year old ruling.
Once you start throwing stare decisis out over "limited impact", then it goes out for everything.

Dangerous precedent for conservative justices to try to set, again.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:25 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
:-)
Nah, she'd **** almost anyone, but not a beta like Livesteam. She did **** a couple of married dudes from CP after we split, but he wasn't one of them. :-)
[Reply]
Mecca 02:31 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Nah, she'd **** almost anyone, but not a beta like Livesteam. She did **** a couple of married dudes from CP after we split, but he wasn't one of them. :-)
So she was runnin wild in Wichita?
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 02:36 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
He changes his 4 year old vote for the sake of stare decisis over an issue of limited impact on society. It’s not like we’ve built up a complex system of interdependence based on the 4 year old ruling.
what??
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:46 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by Mecca:
So she was runnin wild in Wichita?
Wichita was her base of operations, but she made a few trips up to the KC area. :-)
[Reply]
Mecca 02:47 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Wichita was her base of operations, but she made a few trips up to the KC area. :-)
This doesn't sound like a fun thing to deal with.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:48 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by Mecca:
This doesn't sound like a fun thing to deal with.
Meh, it's ancient history.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 02:49 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
He changes his 4 year old vote for the sake of stare decisis over an issue of limited impact on society. It’s not like we’ve built up a complex system of interdependence based on the 4 year old ruling.
What do you think about the actual law at issue? It doesn't appear to have any rationality behind it, and looks like just an end run around Roe.
[Reply]
Shields68 02:50 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
He changes his 4 year old vote for the sake of stare decisis over an issue of limited impact on society. It’s not like we’ve built up a complex system of interdependence based on the 4 year old ruling.
Yep Roberts might as well just said "I am sick of hearing abortion cases, I do not want to overrule one because then there would be a lot of new abortion laws and lawsuits and i don't want to hear anymore abortion cases"
[Reply]
Mecca 02:51 PM 06-29-2020
At this point isn't abortion really just a personal choice, the shit has been legal for 40 years, can we move on yet?
[Reply]
NinerDoug 02:54 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Yep Roberts might as well just said "I am sick of hearing abortion cases, I do not want to overrule one because then I would be getting a lot of new abortion laws and lawsuits and i don't want to hear anymore abortion cases"
Maybe he voted the way he did because the law at issue lacks any rational basis. It's not a ban on abortion. It's a requirement that doctors performing them have admitting privileges.
[Reply]
patteeu 02:55 PM 06-29-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Once you start throwing stare decisis out over "limited impact", then it goes out for everything.

Dangerous precedent for conservative justices to try to set, again.
That’s idiotic.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 10
< 1234 5678 > Last »
Up