It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's Chief Justice John Roberts you punks...and there goes Roe v Wade?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Roberts confirmed to lead U.S. Supreme Court

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John Roberts, a 50-year-old conservative, was sworn in on Thursday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, a lifetime job that positions him to help shape the American way of life for decades.

In a White House ceremony, Roberts took the oath as the youngest chief justice in two centuries -- just hours after the Republican-led Senate confirmed him with significant Democratic support as President George W. Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court, the nation's final legal arbiter.
www.swissinfo.org...


So now we have a new chief justice, though he won't be in his new job for a while until they are all back from vacation. Now awaits who will replace O'Connor. Any favorites.

What's even worse is that libs and dems believe that the confirmation of Roberts means that Roe v Wade is out the door...well, at least some do. But this is just propoganda but a funny read.



If you believe in reproductive choice, you might be crying yourself to sleep these days, as you’ve watched the conservative Ken doll also known as John Roberts sail toward appointment as our country’s most powerful judge. Or perhaps you’ve been pulling your hair out as you've heard pundit after pundit try to fill in the big blanks in what Roberts has said about how he’d rule as chief justice on the country’s most pressing issues. But maybe, just maybe, you’re doing what some of the most diligent women’s groups in this country are now doing: dispensing with the tears and angst, rolling up your sleeves, and trying to figure out what to do after Roberts takes the helm of the Supreme Court—courtesy of a 78-22 vote on Thursday that included the support of 22 Democrats

villagevoice.com...




[edit on 29-9-2005 by Frosty]




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
You know, I am not sure I could think of another judge that will fill the role quite as well as Roberts. I am not quite sure why you would use that particular headline for a thread. Calling people punks will only get Negative responses, and looks a little like baiting to me. All in all though, the nation is better off with Roberts on the bench, thanks for making this thread!



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12 12 2012
You know, I am not sure I could think of another judge that will fill the role quite as well as Roberts. I am not quite sure why you would use that particular headline for a thread. Calling people punks will only get Negative responses, and looks a little like baiting to me. All in all though, the nation is better off with Roberts on the bench, thanks for making this thread!


I guess I tried to relate the 'punks' to those who think he will overturn Roe v Wade. Like 'Haha, I won and I am now in power, it is Chief Justice', etc. I was trying to create something besides just the same old borring news, like maybe creating a conspiracy which I am obviously not good at.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Roe v. Wade was a 6-3 decision, so Judge Roberts even if he wants to change it cant.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   


So now we have a new chief justice, though he won't be in his new job for a while until they are all back from vacation.


Actually, I'm pretty sure the new session starts monday.

[edit on 29/9/05 by Skibum]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Roe vs Wade SHOULD be thrown out and yes, I'm not a pro-life guy. Why? because it is BAD law. It makes no sense and flies in the face of the constitution. Law should be enacted by our elected legislature. The legality of abortion should be decided on a state by state basis and voted on into state law by (gasp) the citizens.


btw Song Remains the Same rules! as do ES-1275's!

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Apoc]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Roe Vs Wade going to be thrown out?

Well so be it.... I myself do not support it personally.

This country is so obsesed with Supreme Court Decisions such as Roe Vs Wade.

If the Public is wanting the Decision to Stand. Then have the Congress create a Consitutional Amendment to make into a law. And then get it ratified by the appropriate ammount of states.. and Whola. You will not have to worry so much about who is on the Supreme Court.

This pussy footing around with having the Supreme Court makine "law" and having it stand like Roe Vs Wade as though its a right must end



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   


I honestly doubt that today's punks really follow the judicial process. Although it would be nice to have today's youth take an active interest in government.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
Roe vs Wade SHOULD be thrown out and yes, I'm not a pro-life guy. Why? because it is BAD law. It makes no sense and flies in the face of the constitution. Law should be enacted by our elected legislature. The legality of abortion should be decided on a state by state basis and voted on into state law by (gasp) the citizens.


So you would say that there is no fundamental Right to Privacy emanating from the Constitution and not only can states decide if they want to ban abortion, but they can ban the sale of contraceptives, alcohol, porn, tobacco or anything they like.

Or, as Judge Thomas believes, there's no separation either aside from the FEDERAL government and Texas can make the Church of Texas and force you to do what it's Pope says if it wants.

I have to admit I find many of the "constitutionalists" concern for logical purity, uh, interesting. Insane. But interesting.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The issue will be pushed not doubt about it, by the fundamentalist Christians that are already salivating at the prospect.

But it will after the new judge be appointed not now.

Texas already have a self righteous judge that has done so work to imposed her views of morality.

I need to find the link.

She is against 17 year olds having sex, piercing and tattoos.

So morality judges are going to be the ones ruling the people in this country.

When they invade your bedroom I hope you feel happy.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
No fundamental right to murdfer, Rant, this has nothing to do with privacy, as far as abortion is concerned. You know it, I know it and Bob Dole knows it.
I dare not even call this law as a matter of fact, I'd call it lawlessness. A law would do just the opposite.

Regardless, Roe-v-Wade will not be changed. Why in the world do you people find such things to fret over?

Marg, I see that immoral people are worrying about having their privilege to murder taken away more than the Christians are salivating. By the way, I take offense to your sick way of writing that. Wanting the nation to return to decency doesn't trigger "salivation" as if we are dogs, that triggers fervent prayer.

Again, I see you are also more concerned about children being granted the privilege of doing things to themselves that can ruin their lives for on down the road. Yes, Marg, real parents would protect their children from just such activities, and would appreciate judges (who SHOULD be moral, if they are to be judges) that would prevent children from being scarred and ruined and taken advantage of.

Why do I wander into the gutter of here? I have to learn to stay out of nonsense. There's no education, just the same fomentation against logic and explanation.

The wrong will be right and the right will be wrong, and this is just evidence of the prophesy coming about. At least I know I'll be going home soon.

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Roe is bad law, brought about by activist judges. Even Blackmun, the author of this travesty, admitted that were there no question that the unborn child is human, then Roe would never have been. But the pro-aborts like to raise stupid questions, like "is it human?" Of COURSE the unborn child is human, what else could it be?

"We can't be sure the unborn child is human," the pro-aborts cry. Even if that were the case, wouldn't you want to error on the side of life? If you see someone lying out in the woods, do you assume they're dead and walk on, or do you see if they can be helped?

"It's a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor," the pro-aborts chant. Great. Suppose my doctor says that to preserve my sanity, I have to go on a chainsaw-killing spree...so long as it's done in the privacy of my own home. Furthermore, the Hippocratic Oath forbids providing abortions.

I'd sure like to know where such "privacy" is found in the Constitution. The only thing about privacy I've found is the Fourth Amendment, being secure in your own home in a nutshell. If anything, permitting abortion runs contrary to the Constitution. Fifth Amendment--no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Roe itself also violates the Tenth Amendment. States had laws against abortion. Roe was a federal power grab.

Bottom line is--NO woman has the fundamental right to kill her child, unborn or born.

"You're making someone pay the price for expressing her sexuality," I've heard one person say.

I say, is that a bad thing? Perhaps the young "lady" (and young "man" for that matter) will realize that if you play, you pay. I guess that person is against personal responsibility. And abortion is not a responsible choice. It's trying to take the easy way out instead of owning up to it. And it has consequences--women die of LEGAL abortions!

It's pretty sad when radical liberals care more about sea turtle eggs or whatever than an unborn human being.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Roe is bad law, brought about by activist judges.


Roe ruled BAD LAW unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.



It's pretty sad when radical liberals care more about sea turtle eggs or whatever than an unborn human being.


No, it's really sad when the fringe points at mainstream American and screams RaDiCaLs!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
]It's pretty sad when radical liberals care more about sea turtle eggs or whatever than an unborn human being.


Yes, because everyone of us who agrees with a woman's rights to have an abortion just cries whenever a turtle egg is crushed...or stamped upon.

I would think it was the other way, those who are pro-life wanting less animals to be killed, since we are nothing more than an animal.

Also if we make abortion illegal do you honestly think people will stop having them? Has it worked for any law? I wish it would, just as much as the next person however the logicality of it is that it won't...

It's sad, really is that in this day and age we are not putting more money into contraception and sex education and still arguing over this. If we remove the Sub-culture that exists within teenage society that all of them need to be having unprotected sex it will go along way to lowering the rate of abortion...



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
It's trying to take the easy way out instead of owning up to it.


I assume you have never lost a child by your post?

See...back when I was 15, I was unlucky enough to get a girl pregnant and she had a termination [against what I wanted] and yet for me and for her, it is still on our minds every damn day of ourlives.

I still speak to the girl now and it still hurts her.

As it does to many women who have an abortion, however many times the choice is to have the abortion or bring a child into a situation which is not good for it. Such as a young family, abusive father, list can go on...

But by no means is it an easy option...



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Is nothing more than the male fundamentalist will love in this country but to have all women wearing parkas and be bare footed and pregnant in the kitchen where they belong.

Sex in their eyes is only for the enjoyment of the male and a sin for a women.

Because they can not control their sexual urges and the women right to bring life or not, they most have the exclusive rights to tell women what to do with their private parts, and the right to monitor their uterus.

Get over it Males pro lifers, you will never grow an uterus, and women has the same rights to enjoy sex just like you, and in top of that you all are forgetting that even in your bible "God made male and female equal"

Some of the statement done by some self righteous around here borders in hysteria.


And still nobody have quote where in the bible say that abortion is murder.

When any of you find it please post a link to it.

Now masturbation is quoted in bible.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Amethyst...great post. I couldnt have said it better. Well done.

You too Rant.. I agree it is bad law. Judges should not be making law from the bench. It bypasses the will of the people in deciding their affairs.

I also think that issues of abortion should be handled at the state levels...by states rights not at the federal government levels.
Also your point about the fringe area pointing at the mainstream of America and screaming "Radicals" is right on . To much of this happening through route of media and education. It has become like a default setting to allow the fringe areas to play through unchallanged. Hence the use of the term default setting.

Once again as I posted to Marge in another board. Abortion/Roe vs. Wade is about womens votes at election time. It is not about abortion per se. Thomas Crowne...you would do well to remember this when discussing the subject. These people whoring out for votes from the women ..especially in high electorial vote states...care nothing about unborn or rights or any other emotional issues precious to Christians. They care about votes and they dont care whose soul they have to sell to get the votes. Drama or not.
This is a clear indicator of the name of thier god. The god of politics. The god of the supreme court. It is whoredom for votes Thomas. Give me the name of the god of whoredoms.???? Give me the name of the god of this type of seduction..deciet.???

And Marge ..you keep posting such drama about women being such downtrodden victims. It is the standard issue M1A technique of people with your religion. It doesnt work well anymore. Even the dumbest nitwit ...and there are many out here..can see it after it is repeated over and over from so many corridors. It is olde technique..you are still singing anti-Vietnam war songs ..everyone else has moved on. Women in this country are not a downtrodden victimized group of people....unless you are trying to get votes by this technique.

One more thing Marge..you posted:

"Texas already have a self righteous judge that has done so work to imposed her views of morality.

I need to find the link.

She is against 17 year olds having sex, piercing and tattoos. "


Thinking people know..that properly adjusted people do not define themselves by outward appearances. The works of the flesh...including sex.
Pagans however ..do conduct themselves exactly this way. It is a mark...a fingerprint of thier god.
Properly adjusted mature people define themselves by internal benchmarks not external marks. Internal developement not external show.
This too defines the God of internal developement. It is the mark of their God.
I am curious as to why the works of the flesh are such a benchmark of progress to you ??? It is in most of your postings and quite obvious.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
To contiune on with my replys to your post.

I keep getting astonished at your postings and I shouldn't be. When you post you have great difficulty defining women outside the sexual arena..then you attempt to browbeat men for responding to this sexuality in women. You hold a womans sexuality up as if it is next to Godlyness..something holy ..then again browbeat men for responding to it as a man. Do you prefer men respond to a womans sexuality as a woman?? I am confused ..please clarify this.

When I deal with women ...I expect so much more from them than sexuality. Sexuality is the very least I expect from them ..the least valuable commodity.
In the line of work for which I am employed...the women who come into
this arena...use their female wiles to mostly get out of work and get the men to make up the diffrence while they socialize like butterflys. When the going gets rough ..the women are mostly not there..they go where the doings are easier and often removing men with injurys from the easier jobs.
Thoses few women who can go the distance as do the men ..are women for whom I have a great respect . The bulk I do not. Same with men. If the men cannot go the distance I have little use for them either.

Being a woman or a man is so much more than sexuality..yet you seem to spend such a innordinate amount of time on this venue. Why is this Marge???
I expect so much more from women than mere sex. The problem with the bulk of them I meet is that if you expect this from them ...it is easier to have sex than the real commitments. Sex takes less work and commitment.
I have often found sex and sexuality among many women to be a offering so that they dont really have to be committed or offer any commitment which will take real work and sacrafice. Not all of them but the bulk. Women who know this difference are very rare and valuable. Men too.

I can cook ..clean...make repairs.IL know what to do in the kitchen..I don t come to a woman for these commodities. Many men can do so..they just are not figured into the popular polls. Yet you ..Marge..stereotype all men as if they are doing exactly what you try to post. This is very tacky "victimization" and I dont give makeovers for this poor strategy. This play book died out when the concept of multitasking came out among the womens groups years ago. This means I can expect more, not less, from a multitasking woman than the standard lines..especially "victimization".

One more thing Marge. Hurricane Katrina really killed the "victimization " doctrine for much of America. You might want to take notice of this awareness in your posts. Keep up to date so to speak. This seems to be your fundamentalist default setting. Sexuality.

I will never quite understand the "fundamentalist " technique of the womens movements to grant carte blanche to express open wholesale sexualty ..for themselves while muzzeling male sexuality. Seems to be a double standard here..of which the depth is not explored by a ignorant people...both male and female.
It appears not to be about sexuality at all..it appears to be about stupid. A placebo to cover up something more important.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Orange I think you have developed a thing for my posts, you just love to read them don't you


I bet you will defend your rights as a male to the teeth but god forbid when a women does the same.


By the way I am a women and if I am not to defend my own gender then what I will be defending. . . yours?


No in a million years.


By the way I have been happily married and loved for 24 years and I am still with the same man, he was my first boyfriend and my only husband.


Even him will not let me go in a million years.

Some men will never ever get to find a women that will stay next to them this long.


Are you a lucky one orange?


By the way sex has a lot to do with relationships love develop with understanding, respect and the ability to be there in the bad, the good and the ugly of marriage times.

Anything else is just but sex, that is why marriages in this time and age do not last long anymore.

It takes maturity, age and wisdome to see the truth.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
After a brief detour from the thread subject, please let's get back on track. Discussions such as the above are often better left to private u2u's.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join