13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Theoretically, they don't have to play politics to keep the job.  Why it is the way it is.   Once there, they can rule, as the Constitution dictates.   That's why they are vetted and there is a confirmation hearing, to make sure they and past ruling were within the Constitution.

 

All this done be elected officials, and why I always state, any problems, and it's the voters fault, since most don't pay attention, are ignorant, and or borderline stupid (I'm being kind), and you get what you vote for.

 

Who has the best commercial seems to be their deciding factor.  Along with this thinking, yet people ignore it:

 

Clearly, you didn't read what I wrote, If they were limited to only one term of say, 10 years, how would that change their decisions?

And thanks for the big fat meme. My rule for them is the bigger they are, the more suspect is their content.

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. That isn't what I said. Here it is again:

"Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say."

 

What do you think it means that the state gets final say? It means that in some states if a doctor gives an abortion and subsequently the state decides it wasn't justified the doctor can be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. Which is exactly what these articles say.

 

 

I'm sorry, I thought when you said:

 

"The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say." 

 

That you were saying that the state got the final say state can determine a mother's life is at risk. 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm sorry, I thought when you said:

 

"The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say." 

 

That you were saying that the state got the final say state can determine a mother's life is at risk. 

Effectively it does say that. Unless you think it's reasonable to expect a physician to take a chance on being fined, losing their license, or  being imprisoned if some D.A. decides the physician made the wrong choice. There are lots of cases already where physicians have refused to provide treatment to women with non-viable fetuses or who have life threatening pregnancies being denied treatment because physicians or hospital administrations are being very very cautious.

As far as I understand it, in Florida if a physician gets a concurring opinion from another ob/gyn MD about the necessity of performing an abortion, then they are legally in the clear.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly, you didn't read what I wrote, If they were limited to only one term of say, 10 years, how would that change their decisions?

And thanks for the big fat meme. My rule for them is the bigger they are, the more suspect is their content.

A term limit may impact their decisions, as they would generally have to plan on doing something after their term. Like generals or any other high-ranking official moving on and off of defense contractor boards and whatnot.

 

Another issue is that they would not be allowed to defend their decisions once they were off the court. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Effectively it does say that. Unless you think it's reasonable to expect a physician to take a chance on being fined, losing their license, or  being imprisoned if some D.A. decides the physician made the wrong choice. There are lots of cases already where physicians have refused to provide treatment to women with non-viable fetuses or who have life threatening pregnancies being denied treatment because physicians or hospital administrations are being very very cautious.

As far as I understand it, in Florida if a physician gets a concurring opinion from another ob/gyn MD about the necessity of performing an abortion, then they are legally in the clear.

It turns out my understanding of Florida abortion law is defective

Because of Florida abortion laws, she carried her baby to term knowing he would die

She said her pregnancy was proceeding normally until November, when, at 24 weeks, an ultrasound showed that the fetus did not have kidneys and that she had hardly any amniotic fluid. Not only was the baby sure to die, her doctors told her, but the pregnancy put her at especially high risk of preeclampsia, a potentially deadly complication.

Her doctors told her it was too late to terminate the pregnancy in Florida, which bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/florida-abortion-term-pregnancy/index.html

Just now, Yellowtail said:

A term limit may impact their decisions, as they would generally have to plan on doing something after their term. Like generals or any other high-ranking official moving on and off of defense contractor boards and whatnot.

 

Another issue is that they would not be allowed to defend their decisions once they were off the court. 

You don't think having served on the Supreme Court isn't a golden ticket on anyone's resume?

And why is being able to defend their decisions a compelling reason? 

 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Effectively it does say that.

Thank you. 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Unless you think it's reasonable to expect a physician to take a chance on being fined, losing their license, or  being imprisoned if some D.A. decides the physician made the wrong choice.

The DA has to have a law that has been broken, and has to have a judge and or jury to agree. 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There are lots of cases already where physicians have refused to provide treatment to women with non-viable fetuses...

By refusing treatment, you mean refusing abortion, is that correct?

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

...or who have life threatening pregnancies being denied treatment because physicians or hospital administrations are being very very cautious.

Do you have any actual examples that support this claim? 

 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As far as I understand it, in Florida if a physician gets a concurring opinion from another ob/gyn MD about the necessity of performing an abortion, then they are legally in the clear.

Which hospitals seem to have a lot of, yes? 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

President Biden and Speaker Pelosi both Catholic, are they radical right wingers? 

 

 

No, they are classic liberals in the FDR mode. I was speaking only of the SCOTUS, but Catholics can usually be relied upon to oppose abortion.

Edited July 24, 20232 yr by Felton Jarvis

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Fortunately, most Americans do not agree with you.  They--especially women--support the right of women to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies.  I hope this topic keeps coming up ad nauseam during election season.  Because the GOP will be annihilated for their anti-freedom of choice stance. 

I have no trouble with women doing what they want with their own bodies. However, what they do with the body growing inside them (which they chose to give life to) is another story.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You don't think having served on the Supreme Court isn't a golden ticket on anyone's resume?

Why? Do you think Clarence Thomas could get a job at Harvard Law? The decisions they make and the influence they can peddle (like generals or any other high-ranking official moving on and off of defense contractor boards and whatnot) would largely determine where they could go. That is the problem. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And why is being able to defend their decisions a compelling reason? 

I said it was another issue, not a compelling reason.

2 minutes ago, Felton Jarvis said:

No, they are classic liberals in the FDR mode. I was speaking only of the SCOTUS, but Catholics can usually be relied upon to oppose abortion.

At least until AFTER they are elected. 

On 7/20/2023 at 2:16 PM, Jingthing said:

Of course it is.

The right wing stole two seats. 

What do you expect?

Kavanaugh Gave Private Assurances. Collins Says He ‘Misled’ Her.

“I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge,” the justice told the senator in a discussion on Roe, according to notes from a meeting before his confirmation.

 

June 24, 2022

“I feel misled,” Ms. Collins said in an interview, adding that the decision was in stark contrast to the assurances she had received privately from Justice Kavanaugh, who had made similar, if less exhaustive, pronouncements at his public hearing.

 

Mr. Manchin, the only Democrat to vote for Justice Kavanaugh, also expressed similar sentiments about Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who made his own strong statements about adhering to precedent during his confirmation in 2017.

 

“I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans,” said Mr. Manchin, who himself is anti-abortion.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html

https://archive.is/u0ztV

 

22 hours ago, KhunLA said:

... and ?

That's why the SCOTUS justices have job for life.  They interpret and rule via the Constitution.

 

Did you read the ruling that set aside Roe vs Wade decision.   It did not ban abortions.  Simple gave that power back to 'the people' of the states.

Did you read the quote I posted? The Framers were aware of how things can go wrong if the apparent majority in a state or locality, i.e. "the people", through their legislatures can enact intemperate or unjust laws that violate basic rights. Are you aware of the Texas take on anti-abortion, a real travesty!

 

I did read the Alito draft, essentially the same thing as the decision. As I explained in previous posts, it goes against logic to give the states a say over such fundamental rights as a woman's right to choose what to do in regard to a not yet viable fetus. As you may know, this right developed from the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, so not something that even the Supreme Court should tamper with.

 

If the Dems got big majorities again, maybe they should impeach the liars on the Supreme Court, those who lied in their confirmation hearings.

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

A term limit may impact their decisions, as they would generally have to plan on doing something after their term. Like generals or any other high-ranking official moving on and off of defense contractor boards and whatnot.

 

Another issue is that they would not be allowed to defend their decisions once they were off the court. 

No problem for Coney Barrett and Alito to get a job at the Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society.

Considering the White house is liberal corrupt, and the justice dept is extremely liberal corrupt, thank goodness the supreme court is conservative, just for a little balance.

 

And before people start calling me names, I'm a registered independent and have no use for either party.

On 7/24/2023 at 10:42 AM, Jingthing said:

That's all you got. Sleazy ad hominem.

 

 

Did you expect an explanation of how Shumer got it wrong?