Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't think it's coherent enough to be a dig at anyone, really.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
I don't think it's coherent enough to be a dig at anyone, really.
esmith
Veteran Member
Just noticed his avatar, and answer to your question.....not directly.
I was josh'n ya.
Sadly, the job is already taken.Let the circus began, with the Democrats as the clowns
The one lesson we can all agree upon: voting and, by extension, not voting has consequences.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Sex has become so casual. And most abortions aren't from rape or failed birth control. Like I said, states should dictate their rules on abortion. I'm sure many would allow rape victims early actions, if not all. But "tax paid" abortions has become more like a license to not concern those who don't want protective services. I've read many instances of women having 4,5 even 12 or more abortions. And yes, women like that are just stupid to me. They don't learn from mistakes. That's stupidity in my book.
Skipper
Wrong is wrong,/ Make America moral again.
I find that an interesting comment as it is meaningless. Why? Because when a judge interprets and makes a decision that in itself makes law. The only way a judge cannot make law is to rule with the law and make no changes.
I consider any potential judge to makes the comment that they should interpret law and not make law to be simply blowing smoke for political purposes.
I defeated your earlier claim.
The same fate awaits this one....
The right to abortion exists independently of the origins of impregnation.
Since the right to bodily autonomy stems from the
federal Constitution, the states cannot override this.
The Constitution exists primarily to protect
the rights of the stupid & the weak.
So judging people as such is irrelevant.
But note the irony that this protects religious
freedom too.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Judges cannot change law. That's Congress. This judge elect is from the same mold he is replacing.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Wow. We are far apart on human development. I don't see a fetus ready to grow into life as a weed.Something that isn't wanted though it lives. I'll just say that for a mother to think more of herself over that of a child is selfish.
Funny. I don't feel defeated.
Why do you hate America?
Her acting career calls.
(She had a cameo in Deadpool 2)
Shad
Veteran Member
She takes naps to keep her energy up. No worries there /s
“Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.
One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and in- vestigations until the President is out of office.
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33 No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accom- plish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreo- ver, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution es- tablishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the Presi- dent’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.” -Brett Kavanaugh in the Minnesota Law Review http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
I could maybe see this argument making sense for civil cases, but I really cannot buy his justification in regards to criminal. If the President commits a crime, then it’s pretty sick to think that “he’s too busy running the country” is a good enough excuse to postpone a criminal investigation.
As for impeachment being the appropriate check on the President: if Investigation is forbidden, then where exactly is Congress obtaining accurate information as to whether the President is guilty of a specific crime? Are they supposed to just blindly impeach based on accusation alone?
And secondly, what if Congress doesn’t act to impeach if crimes are committed? Are we supposed to allow, say a murderer or a rapist, remain as president simply because he’s too busy running the country, and Congress has chosen to look the other way?
Third, what if the crimes directly impact the safety of our country? Waiting until the President leaves office to investigate seems to be way too late.
One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and in- vestigations until the President is out of office.
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33 No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accom- plish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreo- ver, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution es- tablishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the Presi- dent’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.” -Brett Kavanaugh in the Minnesota Law Review http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
I could maybe see this argument making sense for civil cases, but I really cannot buy his justification in regards to criminal. If the President commits a crime, then it’s pretty sick to think that “he’s too busy running the country” is a good enough excuse to postpone a criminal investigation.
As for impeachment being the appropriate check on the President: if Investigation is forbidden, then where exactly is Congress obtaining accurate information as to whether the President is guilty of a specific crime? Are they supposed to just blindly impeach based on accusation alone?
And secondly, what if Congress doesn’t act to impeach if crimes are committed? Are we supposed to allow, say a murderer or a rapist, remain as president simply because he’s too busy running the country, and Congress has chosen to look the other way?
Third, what if the crimes directly impact the safety of our country? Waiting until the President leaves office to investigate seems to be way too late.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
Not your body. Not your problem.
You’ve read that have you? Hmm.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
I haven't been to this forum in a few weeks. I joined for the religious information and was pulled into a political war. This is my last political post. It's not worth my time. Ya'll enjoy.