Making Baby Jesus Cry

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't wait until they topple Roe and give the issue to the states.

We're never going to overturn Roe, you no-mind. It's our biggest draw.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The picture of the modern day demos is a lonely one:

Mary Landreau (sp?) coming to the rescue in New Orleans.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Fools. There's a bigger reason we have Roe. Some issues just don't belong in the hands of the legislature. They're fucking with something that should be left very, very alone.

OK, so you believe in rule by judicial fiat?

"Nine old, white men" should set American policy because a majority might disagree with you??? Harry Blackmun is much smarter than us.

Such unbridled arrogance.

And all the more reason why Bush should appoint an uber-conservative and hope for a few more appointments.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You just don't understand the GOP's states' rights... Its states rights for all, unless those states start doing things the GOP's most virulent voting blocs dislike.

I can't wait until they topple Roe and give the issue to the states. The resulting patchwork of state laws is going to spur a million constitutional challenges in every direction and all but start a cultural civil war. A bloody, disgusting mess, over an issue the govt has no fucking business even getting into... I'm going to enjoy watching it.

Fools. There's a bigger reason we have Roe. Some issues just don't belong in the hands of the legislature. They're fucking with something that should be left very, very alone.

With Terri Schiavo the Feds were stepping in to prevent a state sanctioned taking of her right to life. Unfortunately a rogue judge and the liberal inteligentsia succeeded in committing murder. Please don't make yourself an accessory after the fact Sebby. I enjoy your work too much to think of you in the greybar hotel catching for the bigger inmates.

With innocent feti, the states have the right, nay the duty to prevent judicially sanctioned murder.

The culture of life is consistent on these issues.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
With Terri Schiavo the Feds were stepping in to prevent a state sanctioned taking of her right to life. Unfortunately a rogue judge and the liberal inteligentsia succeeded in committing murder. Please don't make yourself an accessory after the fact Sebby. I enjoy your work too much to think of you in the greybar hotel catching for the bigger inmates.

With innocent feti, the states have the right, nay the duty to prevent judicially sanctioned murder.

The culture of life is consistent on these issues.

Defense of Marriage Act?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Some issues just don't belong in the hands of the legislature. They're fucking with something that should be left very, very alone.

Don't you understand that we simply pre-vote those very same issues in the legislature when we select justices? What's the fucking difference?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the MEME model of politics.

They used it on Bush with the "he lied" crap.

You posit a theme, and then, no matter how well the facts shut you down, you just keep repeating it.

It's all based on the idea that voters are idiots, and will simply remember the last thing they read from the press.

Why else would Landrieu (sp?) just keep saying the same thing?

I wonder - when the mass of voters realize that the only Dem strength involves assuming they are stoopid - how long they will be the secondary party. I'm guessing the Libs overtake them within ten years.

How come no dem has come out publicly to call for the rule of law to be applied to Landrieu for her threats against the president?

Also, here's a pictorial illustration of what you are saying above:

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
The picture of the modern day demos is a lonely one:

Unlike Sean Penn, the jackass has neither an entourage or a personal photographer.

Does the jackass have a shotgun for protection?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm back, and you and I are going to drive Sebby screaming into the night.

I'm sort of ashamed that someone as smart as he can fall for the idiocy that rationality can only be jettisoned for the sake of stupid political positions.

I'm not jetisoning rationality. The right to privacy is so clearly woven through every phrase of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that "obvious" actually fits.

If we have no right to privacy, then what rights do we have? Don't you consider privacy an inherent party of "liberty," "freedom." I mean, how do we have any human dignity without it?

The only reason its even being debated is because a pack of literalists have tried to torture an imbecillic, narrow interpretation out of the Bill of Rights and Constitutions to fit their political agendas.

Of course there's a right to privacy. Think of the absurd results we'd have if there wasn't one. How in the hell could we have any freedom at all if we had no right to privacy? Jesus, unlawful search and seizure would be legal under your interpretation.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Defense of Marriage Act?

What does that have to do with the culture of life?


ps: dinner?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not jetisoning rationality. The right to privacy is so clearly woven through every phrase of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that "obvious" actually fits.

If we have no right to privacy, then what rights do we have? Don't you consider privacy an inherent party of "liberty," "freedom." I mean, how do we have any human dignity without it?

The only reason its even being debated is because a pack of literalists have tried to torture an imbecillic, narrow interpretation out of the Bill of Rights and Constitutions to fit their political agendas.

Of course there's a right to privacy. Think of the absurd results we'd have if there wasn't one. How in the hell could we have any freedom at all if we had no right to privacy? Jesus, unlawful search and seizure would be legal under your interpretation.

I completely agree that, in the natural rights of man, privacy is there.

Show me where it's in that limited document called our Constitution.

You're like a religious nut. You want it to be, and so therefore it is there.

Umm, no.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


Of course there's a right to privacy. Think of the absurd results we'd have if there wasn't one. How in the hell could we have any freedom at all if we had no right to privacy? Jesus, unlawful search and seizure would be legal under your interpretation.

No, because that is dealt with specifically. I can find it in the constitution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Don't you understand that we simply pre-vote those very same issues in the legislature when we select justices? What's the fucking difference?

The judges are boxed in by precedent and the Constitution. Roe keeps the courts and legislatures from amking abortion a huge fucking disaster culturally and politically. Roe draws an imperfect line for women's rights and says "We ought not to go fucking around with this, because really... it belongs in a doctor's office, not a legilature, where it will be used as a political football by imbeciles and whores."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
I completely agree that, in the natural rights of man, privacy is there.

Show me where it's in that limited document called our Constitution.

You're like a religious nut. You want it to be, and so therefore it is there.

Umm, no.

Exactly. I'd like a right to privacy to not have to disclose my income to the Feds. Can I apply this hallucinatory right against the IRS Sebby?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The judges are boxed in by precedent and the Constitution. Roe keeps the courts and legislatures from amking abortion a huge fucking disaster culturally and politically. Roe draws an imperfect line for women's rights and says "We ought not to go fucking around with this, because really... it belongs in a doctor's office, not a legilature, where it will be used as a political football by imbeciles and whores."

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get there constitutionally. Roe represents a justice deciding that it's all a fucking mess, and he's going to clean it up.

But we're lawyers, and we know better. He fucked up. This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a moral one.