results?.......FALLOUT TO FOLLOW, FUBAR NOT FAR BEHIND

homeagain wrote: OH LET ME SEE, HOW MANY JUDGES WERE APPOINTED BY TRUMP.....THE MAJORITY. DOES TRUMP HAVE A CABINET FULL OF HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOLLOWERS OF PROJECT 2025,YES.....DOES HE HAVE A LOYALTY LIST...YES....SO YOUR FAITH/ FOLLOWING OF THE SCOTUS IS SUSPECT AND UNINFORMED.....AND JUST LIKE THAT....U HAVE DISCARDED ALL THE DOCUMENTED DEATHS OF WOMAN AND INFANTS....HOW HUMANE OF U. FULL STOP (AND WHEN i SAY FULL STOP IT MEANS CEASE THE BULLSHIT.AND GET REAL)

Given you were in school prior to the creation of the federal Department of Education that has destroyed public education in this union, I am rather surprised that you believe 3 out of 9 is a majority HA. Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed, 3 justices to the Supreme Court during Trump's first term in office and there are 9 justices on the bench in that body. How you arrive at the irrational conclusion that Trump appointed a majority to the court can only be explained by irrational emotions rather than reasoned inquiry.

I haven't discarded a single death, or the suffering of a single woman, I am simply laying the responsibility for those deaths and that suffering at the feet of the proper party . . . the one issuing propaganda to instill fear and doubt among doctors and women in pursuit of political profit. If those responsible for distributing the propaganda of fear and doubt would instead focus their efforts on amplifying the legal conclusions from the Supreme Court of Texas and SCOTUS, why, the amount of death and suffering would be greatly diminished instead of increasing. How you can read the actual words from the Supreme Court of Texas, that it is an incorrect legal assessment any doctor to tell a patient they are experiencing a complication which requires a termination of their pregnancy but that Texas law prohibits them from providing that care, and call it suspect is simply amazing to me. It is a questioning of that decision by those who seek to distribute fear and doubt that is suspect, not the determination of the highest court in the State of Texas. That court is the ultimate decider of fact and law, and they say the fear and doubt spread by the propaganda is wrong.

SCOTUS has ruled that evidence based standard of care, EMTALA, is what every institution and doctor who accepts Medicare and Medicaid must provide. If the evidence based standard of care says that a direct abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother in a given situation, then that is the care an institution or doctor is required to provide, even in Idaho, where the only exception to an elective homicide procedure is to protect the life of the woman. Know why? A medical complication which requires certain evidence based treatment is not an elective homicide, it is actual medical care derived from centuries of medical knowledge to arrive at the best practices to achieve the best outcomes.

And even if a doctor in Idaho has a patient whose water broke in the 13th week of her pregnancy, there are 4 evidence based treatments in the standard of care, 2 of which, a c-section and inducing of labor, are not considered to be a direct abortion, as the other 2, a D&E or D&C, are considered. The reason? Those two treatments have the intention of a live birth, even if the child is too young to survive, versus the other two which have the intention of directly ending the child's life.

When you fill your mind with knowledge instead of propaganda, reasoned decisions are possible. I highly suggest you give it a try HA.

thecourtdirect.com/which-supreme-court-j...es-are-conservative/

The current Supreme Court has a solid conservative majority, with 6 of the 9 justices appointed by Republican presidents. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court as of 2023 are:


R'S WOULD NOT LET MERRICK RUN....INSTEAD THE MOST RECENT POTUS ELECTED THE NUMBER THAT WOULD MAKE THE MAJORITY A CONSERVATIVE COURT....6 OUT OF NINE....
DO NOT ASSUME I CAN'T COUNT....FULL STOP

homeagain wrote: OH LET ME SEE, HOW MANY JUDGES WERE APPOINTED BY TRUMP.....THE MAJORITY.

Since when is 3 a majority of 9 HA? Never, right? Arguably, since it was the death of Scalia (nominated by Ford) that opened a seat on the court for which Obama nominated Merrick, Gorsuch's nomination and confirmation to the court didn't alter the majority, it preserved the existing one.

Delaying the confirmation vote until after the 2016 elections was a huge gamble, particularly given Hilary was supposed to mop the floor with Trump in the election. In theory at least, Merrick was a swing vote along the lines of Kennedy. Had Hilary actually won the election, we would have gotten an activist like Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Brown on the court and the balance would have shifted, dramatically. And, had the Democrats not blown up the process by altering the need for 60 votes to confirm judicial appointments in order to seat more Obama nominees, the "nuclear option" likely wouldn't have been implemented by the Republicans who controlled the Senate for Supreme Court justices. Chickens coming home to roost and all that you know.

Same could be said for Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy . . . Kennedy was considered to be a conservative justice overall, and he was nominated by Reagan. The change came with the death of Ginsburg and the confirmation of Barrett, which may have widened the majority from 5-4 to 6-3, but still didn't alter the majority when all is said and done. In every material fashion, your exclamation is contrary to reality, again, just as it is when you attempt to lay the increased deaths and suffering of pregnant women at the feet of the laws when it properly belongs at the feet of the propagandists who have decided to amplify fear and doubt over honesty and reason.

thecourtdirect.com/which-supreme-court-j...es-are-conservative/


Implications of a Conservative Majority

With 6 conservative justices, the current Supreme Court could make significant right-leaning rulings.
Potential Rulings on Key Issues

The conservative majority makes it likely the Court will overturn or weaken Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. Other precedents on issues like affirmative action and gun control could also be overturned.

The Court will likely expand religious freedom rights and limit government regulation of businesses. Rulings on voting rights, gerrymandering, and campaign finance reform will likely lean conservative as well.
See also Iredell County District Court
Long-Term Impact on the Court

Some argue the current majority could fundamentally change jurisprudence on issues like abortion, civil rights, executive power, and federalism. The Court’s legitimacy could be threatened.

On the other hand,Chief Justice Roberts has occasionally sided with liberals and could moderate extreme rulings. Regardless, the conservative majority will likely last for decades.


AND JUST LIKE THAT......THE TRIO ELECTED BY TRUMP (WHO DEMANDS LOYALTY) R SUSPECT AND BIASED....and that weasel K LIED HIS ASS OFF TO GET ELECTED.

As I said earlier, you, and the good folks at a biased site you pulled your information from, can believe anything you wish to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. Prior to Ginsburg's passing, the majority was 5-4, now the majority is 6-3, but the court has arguably had a conservative majority for the last 20 years if your criteria for assigning a conservative majority is the president who nominated the justice.

Are you seeking to establish that only the conservative justices are suspect and biased? You're leaving such titans as Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and the current crop of Sotomayor, Brown, and Kagan out of that club for some odd reason?

Look, even Ginsburg said that Roe was a bad decision . . . she upheld it because she agreed with the outcome, but at least she was honest enough to say it was a bad legal decision from the get go. The current crop of propagandists seeking to spread fear and doubt aren't even that honest about their motives. Roe was under attack from the day the decision was published until the day it was overturned. Sometimes SCOTUS gets it wrong and the decisions are as wrong on the day they are issued as on the day they are finally overturned. Brown v Board of Education overturning Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind in that regard too.

If you want a one-size-fits-none federal top-down solution, write to your representatives in Congress and have them introduce the legislation that will ultimately end up looking more like the law in North Carolina (access for 12 weeks) than Colorado (access unlimited). You won't be happy with that solution either, but at least at that point it will be legislated by a legislature instead of a court. And that, ultimately, is what felled Roe, it was the unelected justices of the Supreme Court seeking to legislate a compromise in their chambers rather than having the legislature legislate it in their chambers. Roe was doomed from the day it was issued. Really not so much a question of it as when.

But let's play your irrational belief out, just for grins and giggles, shall we? McConnell allows hearings and a confirmation vote on Garland and he now sits in the seat vacated by Scalia. You now have a "liberal majority" on the court. Garland, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Trump is elected and Kennedy retires to be replaced by Kavanaugh. Still a liberal majority. Ginsburg passes and is replaced by Barrett . . . and the new majority is a conservative one. Take a look at the Dobbs decision HA. Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett all voted to overturn, that's a 5-4 decision instead of a 6-3 decision, but Roe still gets overturned, because it was a bad decision from day one and the only reason not to overturn it has nothing to do with the law and judicial oversight of the law and everything to do with ideology.

Right now elective homicide is right where it is supposed to be under our system of governance, with each individual State because the federal legislature has thus far declined to take the matter up. That means that you will have a patchwork of laws that vary in the individual sovereign States, just as you do for everything else. Dobbs didn't say that access to elective homicide had to be restricted, it said in the absence of actual federal legislation on the matter that each of the 50 sovereign States retained their ability to act in accordance with the consent of those they governed. There is no right to destroy a human life for your own convenience; in every other aspect of our criminal, civil, and common law, one must be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death before they are permitted to act in defense of themselves and destroy another human life.

I am saying that a 'LOYALTY LIST' IS THE BASIS FOR EVERYTHING THAT U R WITNESSING..it is amusing u find the sited source as biased/. Your foundation is religious based, NOT legal based. R.V.W. was ESTABLISHED LAW,. FOR DECADES,THEN RELIGIOUS RIGHT (HERITAGE FOUNDATION) BECAME THE LEADER OF THE NATION......THEIR PRIME OBJECTIVE WAS TO ABOLISH THE ESTABLISHED LAW AND REPLACE IT WITH AN ARCHAIC AND PATRIARCHAL PARADIGM .TRUMP
WAS FINANCED (IN PART) BY THIS FOUNDATION AND BECAUSE OF THEIR LOYALTY HE HAS EMBRACED THEIR AGENDA. END OF STORY...LOYALTY IS EVERYTHING IN TRUMP;S WORLD.

and oh, by the way, i am old enough to have witnessed the ANITA HILL, CLARENCE THOMAS TRIAL.....
so I fully understand the foundation of his rulings....male dominance rules. FULL STOP

No, the premise of every argument I make in opposition to elective homicides all derive from a foundational statement made in our founding document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Science alone informs us that the human life in utero, whether that is 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 22 weeks or 38 weeks in gestation is past the point in time where it was created. We are endowed with our unalienable right to Life upon our creation HA . . . that's what our founding document tells us about ourselves and our system of government. Science alone informs us that each and every human life begins, is created, with the merging of the gametes of our parents. From that time until our death, whether from natural causes, accidents, or an act of homicide, we are living members of the human race at some point along our developmental journey.

That's not a statement of faith, its a statement of science, of fact. Before Roe, it was established law, for over a century, that it was a crime to destroy human life in the womb absent an imminent threat to the woman caused by a complication of the pregnancy. Our system of government allows for the changing of the laws, with the consent of the governed, for that is where our system of government derives its authority, our consent to be governed by the laws of our government. There was never, ever, a federal law passed that defined access to elective homicides. It never, ever, happened.

What did happen was the unelected justices of the Burger court decided to take it upon themselves to intervene in a societal squabble and impose its compromise onto the citizens and residents of the 50 States. No one, on either side, was happy with the Roe decision, and rightly so, the federal appellate judiciary is not permitted to legislate from their bench in our system of government. They are only allowed to review laws that are passed and determine whether or not those laws are consistent with or in violation of our federal Constitution. And, as stated before, no federal legislature ever enacted a law granting access to elective homicides, it never, ever, happened.

For the judiciary to look at itself and say that they have exceeded their constitutionally granted authority is a rare occurrence, but that is what SCOTUS did in the Dobbs decision. The Robert's court acknowledged the error made, and returned to the States their sovereign power to govern with the consent of their citizens unless and until the representatives of The People with the consent of the governed from their districts, their State, enacted legislation that would then be the Supreme law of the land.

Colorado's legislation, it's enshrinement of zero restrictions on access to elective homicides, will be as empty as the laws severely restricting access were while the error of Roe remained, if/when the Congress chooses to adopt North Carolina's limits, or Idaho's, or Wisconsin's. What I can assure you HA, is that a federal one-size-fits-none, top-down, effort will never adopt Colorado's position.

So either pick the restrictions you're willing to compromise and adopt and entreat the federal government to adopt that compromise, or stop spreading the propaganda of fear and doubt and accept that the citizens of each of the sovereign States has the ability to enact laws consistent with the consent of those they govern. Full stop.

the exact read....."life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty


: the quality or state of being free:
a
: the power to do as one pleases
b
: freedom from physical restraint
c
: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot sense 1) control
d
: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e
: the power of choice


THE POWER OF CHOICE....HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Homicide is defined as the taking of a person’s life, regardless of the intent or the circumstances surrounding the death. This means that a homicide is not necessarily a murder, but may be caused by an accident, an execution, or even abortion. Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime, though the circumstances that resulted in the individual’s death may raise it to a criminal level. To explore this concept, consider the following homicide definition. source...same as above

As long as you find a definition you agree with, then you can sleep at night. It's amazing how some people can justify the murder of children. I think it's a lot easier to have that view of human life when you've never done your part to create human life.

I am stating facts....not opinions. IF FACTS r not to your liking,then u "dog pile" on to the poster...I AM CONNECTING DOTS, dots r leading to dire consequences, BUT, just like 9/11 ......blinded by ignorance or apathy...they were left disconnected.......WHO IN THEIR LOGICAL MIND WOULD LOOK AT THE DEVASTATING DUST OF CEMENT,HUMAN REMAINS,PLASTIC,METAL OF ALL TYPES ,WOOD AND CHEMICALS AND ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENTS ASSESSMENT THAT THE AIR WAS OK TO BREATHE AND THEN REMAIN IN THEIR HOMES AND IN THE CITY.???? that IS NOT CONNECTING THE DOTS.