Abanter, only one of us is being obtuse. We seem to agree that judges shouldn’t make laws, but you are suggesting that they can’t? There are hundreds of examples of where they have done precisely this thing. Just off the top of my head, do you remember when a Texas judge didn’t like the way the districts were drawn in Texas so he just went ahead and redrew them to his liking? Why is marriage between two guys legal in Massachusetts? Why can you kill your kids? None of these things were passed by any legislative branch of our governments… No, it’s activist judges making laws. You can choose not to call them ‘laws’, but that’s what they are.

“And you know what would end Roe V Wade? If some state passed a law that banned abortion, and it too went all the way up the ladder, and the Supremes decided that the fetus has greater rights than the woman.”

Or equal rights with the woman. And I think we agree that this would probably never happen, and has in fact failed a number of times in recent years. So the law, created by 9 judges, will still hold sway over us. It’s very un-American.

I’m done playing with you.

And you know what would end Roe V Wade? If some state passed a law that banned abortion, and it too went all the way up the ladder, and the Supremes decided that the fetus has greater rights than the woman. Optionally, Congress could alter the Constitution to include such rights. Really. You think it should go back to the states? Then start a petition. There’s probably one circulating right now, go lobby for it. It even might get passed, even if only briefly. The law that SD passed was repealed in a referendum within the year. Other states have tried too.

All they have to do is write a law that somehow allows the state to end abortions without intruding upon the rights of the woman, the doctor, alter the premise of medical confidentiality, define the existence of life and specify the rights of the fetus. How hard could that be?

I’m sorry you don’t consider me ‘…even much of an American, much less a “libertarian”’.` My premise is that the CONSTITUTION gave us all the rights we hold so dear. It freed us, Ben. It’s that simple.

Look, you can’t be a libertarian, small or big L, unless you believe that our freedoms are already ours, and not granted by some benevolent government. That’s why they said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights . . . .”

Everything is legal, unless and until the government says otherwise. If you don’t believe that, you’re not even much of an American, much less a “libertarian”.

But why follow up with an insult like, “you show no awareness of the most basic and fundamental fact of liberty”? As a conservative/libertarian, of COURSE I know what liberty means. And I fully agree with Patrick Henry on the subject. I’m not a progressive or a liberal who prefers fairness over freedom, so clearly liberty means everything to me. Why would you insult me so?

In fact, liberty is exactly why I’m cool with you killing your kids! Squish ‘em, stomp on ‘em, use a vacuum on them, whatever it is you like to do. Go for it. Murder them in any way you see as fashionable. I don’t care. I’ll support you in that endeavor. Again, I DON’T CARE. Snuff ‘em. Whatever.

But I do have to disagree with you, Mr. Ben. “The Constitution does NOT give us our freedoms, it deliniates[sic] the government’s limited power to restrict our freedoms.” This is patently untrue. And you should know that.

I think it strikes down unconstitutional laws. I DON’T think it should be able to CREATE laws as it did in Roe V Wade. That decision is essentially a law saying that abortion is legal. It sets horrible precedent when a group of 9 unelected Americans can lay down laws that we all must abide by.

But in the interest of preserving the rule that only the legislative branch of our government can make laws, I’m willing to suffer the consequences of Roe V Wade being overturned.

Nice try, Kevin. You’re obviously setting yourself up as some sort of libertarian (who can blame you, with conservatism being so shoddy and disreputable these days), yet you show no awareness of the most basic and fundamental fact of liberty.

EVERYTHING IS LEGAL unless and until a law is passed against it. The Constitution does NOT give us our freedoms, it deliniates the government’s limited power to restrict our freedoms. In other words, my pseudotarian friend, there does not NEED to be a law making abortion (“killing kids! killing kids!” Yeah, we get it) legal. The SCOTUS found that laws against abortion are beyond the government’s limited power to restrict our freedom. This is why Roe V. Wade can never be undone, and only an anti-liberty idiot would WANT it to be undone.

So, in other words, you fail both the small-l and the Big-L test, you standard conservative Republican, you.

Yet again I must reiterate: I don’t care if you want to kill your kids because they are inconvenient to you. Kill as many of them as you can make! But only when they are still in the womb… we’ve got to draw the line somewhere. What I DO care about is that 9 unelected people got together and decided that killing babies in the womb is every American’s God given right, and that it’s in the Constitution.

“And the Supremes didn’t “make a law”, they struck down laws that forced women to have children against their best wishes as unconstitutional. Something that you, by failing to get it, want to press the re-do button for and hope that they’ll get the result you like.”

How many times do I have to say this? I’M PRO-BABY KILLING! Any change in the status-quo would be a net-negative to me. But in the interest of preserving the rule that only the legislative branch of our government can make laws, I’m willing to suffer the consequences of Roe V Wade being overturned.

Hey, what’s a ‘berk’? BTW, I’ve got no STDs. In the future, when deriding conservatives, you might consider calling us virgins or something. STD’s are primarily a problem of the left.

And the Supremes didn’t “make a law”, they struck down laws that forced women to have children against their best wishes as unconstitutional. Something that you, by failing to get it, want to press the re-do button for and hope that they’ll get the result you like. Sending this back to the states to decide on an individual basis will just start the whole process all over again, and lead right back to the Supremes, again, to decide it’s constitutionality.

I just wish you would condemn the court consistently by noting what a monstrous fuck-up Bush V Gore was. HAHAHAH, yeah… whatever.

Berk.

Nah, that part’s not confusing. In fact, I’m for legalizing drugs of all sorts (and taxing the crap out of them) simply because it’s your own body to do with what you will. Where it gets complicated is when you introduce another life into your body. The choices she makes no longer affect only her.

But again, I’m not arguing against you killing your kids. I’m only saying Roe V Wade is bad law and should be struck down.

“I mean, what do you think the SCOTUS does, Kev?”

I think it strikes down unconstitutional laws. I DON’T think it should be able to CREATE laws as it did in Roe V Wade. That decision is essentially a law saying that abortion is legal. It sets horrible precedent when a group of 9 unelected Americans can lay down laws that we all must abide by. Do we live in an oligarchy or a democracy, Ab?

“And why does it not surprise me that you seek the removal of Syria and Iran sans causus belli? ”

Sans causus belli?!? Iran is gearing up for building nukes, supplying terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, possibly in Iran, Syria is killing pro-democracy Lebanese, both are supplying Hezbollah, Syria actually invaded Lebanon a few days ago… and you call all of this ‘sans causus belli’?

The poorest thing that crawls on earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is an object respectable in the eyes of God and man. But I cannot conceive any existence under heaven [...] that is truly more odious and disgusting than an impotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion he can never exercise, and satisfied to be himself, to be himself mean and miserable….

– Edmund Burke

Took the words right out of my keyboard, he did.

Oh, wait…

Of course, were you to enlist, you could show us all how big n’ tuff yew are by aiding the effort in that other place we already seem to be in. After all, we’re seeing “progress”, or so the Pres says. I bet by the time you get out of Boot, you won’t have to do much more except police the grounds for rose petals and candy wrappers… and the odd bomb in a can.

I mean, what do you think the SCOTUS does, Kev? It makes decisions on the Constitutionality of laws. People are going to challenge those laws the states pass, and it may well end up right back on the SCOTUS bench. You just don’t like this decision, that’s all. If it came out the other way around, then you’d probably be pissing and moaning about the process and how it’s been decided by SCOTUS and the state leges are full of boobs, and anyway we won you lost, so just pop another one out for Jesus, missy!

So… no, Sophist. All religions are NOT equal. Islam is NOT like Sufism, Hinduism, or Buddhism or Christianity. It’s a killer. This will no doubt come as a surprise to you, Sophist, but even a tiny nod to islam MUST draw my ire. Assuming you like your lady friends, you surely agree with me.

I’ll not say more, since my worldview involves the ‘removal’ of Syria and Iran… oh yeah, you know what I mean by that.

Islam is not a friendly religion to non-subscribers, and frankly it’s embarrassing that the hippies on the left don’t get this. It’s so important, yet it’s zooming over your heads. *schwooosh* This isn’t a hippie religion that will come and go. It’s real. It’s a supremacist religion that states that muslims are all good, and non-muslims are not even ‘people’.

So forgive me if I don’t prioritize CO2 as a big problem. I promise to give it full thought once the jihadis stop jihading. Until then, we should concentrate on killing them, huh?

I ‘go off’ on muslims often, someguy, and will stop when they condemn jihad in the name of their god. Not before.

Abanterer, blah blah blah friggin’ blah! As I said, I DO want every state to get it’s fingers into it. Not because I care that women are killing their babies (I don’t. Kill babies to your heart’s content!), but because I don’t want imaginary ‘clauses’ in the Constitution to become laws. Again, kill your kids if you want. I don’t care. Just don’t lean on the Constitution while you kill them.

But if you try to suggest that islam is just another peaceful religion: you’re an idiot and I have to call you on it. And I did.

He was merely suggesting that Flip’s shirt be amended to include Hinduism. Nothing was said about Islam, one way or another, until you graced the thread with your lambent presence.

Dipshit.