Breaking: Abortion Rights Overturned

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
If I may ...


Yes we are ... According to the State Constitution.

Art. 5. (a)
(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, ...
He is talking specifically about common-law marriage which is not legal to establish in Maryland (though common-law marriages that are legal in other jurisdictions are recognized by the state). As to the Common Law of England, Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753 declared that marriages were only valid if performed by a minister.

Maryland is a domestic partner state that affords the parties certain rights when the partnership dissolves.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member

I think it's the bigger issue, how a justice votes on a matter is between himself and god. Trying to pick justices to vote your way on a particular case is going to be a losing proposition, especially when your not in the majority. Trying to change the rules to pack the court to get the outcome you want is going to bite you in the ass. Take the loss, work with it and maybe legislate an answer instead of trying to get the court to legislate from the bench.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
This guy lied about having Russian collusion evidence. 6 yrs later and he still can't find it.
This is what is so laughable about it - the ONE person who has the LEAST credibility when it comes to being *honest* in Congress.

But at least a couple other things - at least Dems like Senator Warner believes that the leaker needs to be strung up by the nearest yardarm (my words). It DOES matter who leaked it, ESPECIALLY if it was done at the behest of one of the SCOTUS justices.

And he doesn't give a rat's ass about expanding the court IF IT MEANS MORE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES. What he wants - what the Dems want who insist on it - is to be able to manipulate SCOTUS as their own political tool. Disgraceful. Why don't we just give the President the power to appoint Senators, and add more as he pleases?

Another is "a small number of conservative justices". Excuse me - if Roberts votes with them, that would be two-thirds of the court. Small number my ass, that's far more than a majority.

Lastly, the Dems always manage to figure out how to phrase something in the worst way possible. Let me put it this way - will millions of women be deprived of every kind of reproductive care? Not in the least. Will they be deprived of MOST of their reproductive care? NOT even close. Oh, so there remains a small possiblity they might briefly be inconvenienced by a short cessation of abortion access. POSSIBLY. Because if it is rendered, it doesn't go into effect immediately and any state can pass their laws.

The Court should NEVER be making laws, any more than governors during the pandemic should be - the Court should have not have made decisions on which trimester was ok, which one was conditional and so forth. They DON'T MAKE LAWS. Congress does. State legislatures do. Not the courts.
 

herb749

Well-Known Member
This is what is so laughable about it - the ONE person who has the LEAST credibility when it comes to being *honest* in Congress.

But at least a couple other things - at least Dems like Senator Warner believes that the leaker needs to be strung up by the nearest yardarm (my words). It DOES matter who leaked it, ESPECIALLY if it was done at the behest of one of the SCOTUS justices.

And he doesn't give a rat's ass about expanding the court IF IT MEANS MORE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES. What he wants - what the Dems want who insist on it - is to be able to manipulate SCOTUS as their own political tool. Disgraceful. Why don't we just give the President the power to appoint Senators, and add more as he pleases?

Another is "a small number of conservative justices". Excuse me - if Roberts votes with them, that would be two-thirds of the court. Small number my ass, that's far more than a majority.

Lastly, the Dems always manage to figure out how to phrase something in the worst way possible. Let me put it this way - will millions of women be deprived of every kind of reproductive care? Not in the least. Will they be deprived of MOST of their reproductive care? NOT even close. Oh, so there remains a small possiblity they might briefly be inconvenienced by a short cessation of abortion access. POSSIBLY. Because if it is rendered, it doesn't go into effect immediately and any state can pass their laws.

The Court should NEVER be making laws, any more than governors during the pandemic should be - the Court should have not have made decisions on which trimester was ok, which one was conditional and so forth. They DON'T MAKE LAWS. Congress does. State legislatures do. Not the courts.


I guess its too much to ask people to be responsible for their actions.
 

PJay

Well-Known Member
ab8d34ef3b6b4271~2.jpeg
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
9 Terrifying Consequences Of Overturning Roe V. Wade

...

5) Planned Parenthood workers will have to find somewhere to stab people in the head on their own time: OJ probably knows a good spot.

6) Pregnant men will be forced to give birth: Gross!

7) More minorities will be born: Poor Bill Gates!

...



:lmao:
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
If they can teach them to cook and clean, I see a spike in sales for Bang-bots.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
9 Terrifying Consequences Of Overturning Roe V. Wade

...

5) Planned Parenthood workers will have to find somewhere to stab people in the head on their own time: OJ probably knows a good spot.

6) Pregnant men will be forced to give birth: Gross!

7) More minorities will be born: Poor Bill Gates!


...



:lmao:
Hold the phone, Sparky.

 
Top