Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[JJ Husker]

I think this is where the goalpost emoji gets inserted.  

I’m not moving s#!t. You’re the one that keeps missing what the discussion is about. Of course people know that other rulings have been overturned in the past.   Show me where I have questioned that. The issue I’m talking about is the circumstances, timing and justices lying in their hearings. The fact that you keep returning to something obvious that you said prior does not mean that is what’s being discussed. 

 

[knapplc]

Please provide some comparable examples. I’ll be lenient, the examples must have been decided within 4 years of the deciding justice’s confirmation hearings where they are on record stating what they subsequently voted to overturn was “settled law” and “precedent”. To be clear, THAT is the issue, not simply that something was overturned. So show me the other SC liars.

Who didn't know this would be the answer?

I think this is where the goalpost emoji gets inserted.  

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

You need to get out more. There are plenty of moms who hate their children and wish they were never born. Moms who beat their children. Moms who curse their children. Moms who kick their children out onto the street. Don't be so naive.

Lol.

I’m a business owner who is very active in multiple community and school leadership boards, so yeah, I get out plenty. Sounds like I hang around the good kind of people. Maybe you should assess who you surround yourself with.

So the answer to this (alleged) rampant issue of child hating mothers is to…. kill them before they ever have a chance? Right…. And I’d only be naive if I believed so many mothers had confided in you that they wish their children had been aborted.

 

[knapplc]

Lol.

I’m a business owner who is very active in multiple community and school leadership boards, so yeah, I get out plenty. Sounds like I hang around the good kind of people. Maybe you should assess who you surround yourself with.

So the answer to this (alleged) rampant issue of child hating mothers is to…. kill them before they ever have a chance? Right…. And I’d only be naive if I believed so many mothers had confided in you that they wish their children had been aborted.

59% of women who have abortions already have children.

 

[Archy1221]

Who didn't know this would be the answer?

To a stupid question.  Of course that should be the answer.   He really thinks someone is gonna research SCOTUS confirmation hearings from 150 years ago :facepalm:   I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  

 

[knapplc]

To a stupid question.  Of course that should be the answer.   He really thinks someone is gonna research SCOTUS confirmation hearings from 150 years ago :facepalm:   I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  

You insinuated you had knowledge of "what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled" and he asked for examples. Not only is that not a stupid question, it's a great question.

Of course, a person who doesn't actually know the answer to that would dodge the question, then try to make the conversation about the question without ever actually answering the question... and here we are.

 

[Archy1221]

You insinuated you had knowledge of "what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled" and he asked for examples. Not only is that not a stupid question, it's a great question.

Of course, a person who doesn't actually know the answer to that would dodge the question, then try to make the conversation about the question without ever actually answering the question... and here we are.

Ya, I posted the cases earlier there knap :facepalm: .  Not a good look for you here.  

 

[knapplc]

Ya, I posted the cases earlier there knap :facepalm: .  Not a good look for you here.  

And this is how a question is dodged. Because he asked for specific examples with specific criteria, and whoosh off we went into another tangent.

It's a pattern we're all familiar with.

 

[Archy1221]

And this is how a question is dodged. Because he asked for specific examples with specific criteria, and whoosh off we went into another tangent.

It's a pattern we're all familiar with.

And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.  The criteria he wanted was for someone to look into confirmation hearings from 50-200 years ago.   Ain’t gonna happen.  He can do the research if he wants to dispute someone.  The cases have been posted, then he changed what he wanted.   You chime in and say the same nonsense because you have sad trombone going on about the ruling and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  

 

[Archy1221]

Wrong.

Still waiting on the answer to the question posed to you on what was wrong.  

 

[JJ Husker]

And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.  The criteria he wanted was for someone to look into confirmation hearings from 50-200 years ago.   Ain’t gonna happen.  He can do the research if he wants to dispute someone.  The cases have been posted, then he changed what he wanted.   You chime in and say the same nonsense because you have sad trombone going on about the ruling and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  

To be clear, I didn’t change what I wanted. I never disputed that the SC had previously overturned itself, a stupidly simple thing that only you seem to think is being disputed. What I want is for you to catch up and try to keep up and discuss things related to and at least somewhat similar to the issue at hand.

Archy: The SC has reversed itself before.

JJ: Yeah, so what? Show me when SC justices have lied in their confirmation hearing and then virtually immediately overturned that same thing they called “settled law” and “precedent”.

Archy: Goalposts blah blah blah, JJ can look it up blah blah blah

:facepalm:  f#&% it’s exhausting trying to keep you on topic.

 

[Archy1221]

fore.

JJ: Yeah, so what? Show me when SC justices have lied in their confirmation hearing and then virtually immediately overturned that same thing they called “settled law” and “precedent”.

1) show me where the SC Justices lied  in their hearings.

2) the next point moot because the first didn’t happen.   Plus you are asking for unrealistic information, 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Simple sequence of events:

1. Conservatives on court lied to Senate and entire country stating Roe was settled law and thus safe to get confirmed.

2. They summarily overturn it with no accountability.

3. Thomas explicitly states we should revisit the cases guaranteeing a right to gay marriage and contraception and outlawing sodomy laws.

In no way, shape or form is any of the concern melodramatic. People are correctly concerned about the rights these clowns have out and out told us they want to go after next.

Given all the things I never thought would happen that I've seen happen the past few years, I'm not betting against America's worst instincts. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1) show me where the SC Justices lied  in their hearings.

2) the next point moot because the first didn’t happen.   Plus you are asking for unrealistic information, 

Lied as in guilty of perjury? No. Of course they're too smart for that.

Mislead Congress in order to get nominated, knowing their full intention of overturning Roe v Wade once they had the numbers in place?

Of course.

I'm not uncomfortable calling it lying because they certainly didn't tell the truth, something that should be obvious now, even to you.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

 

[Danny Bateman]

Lied as in guilty of perjury? No. Of course they're too smart for that.

Mislead Congress in order to get nominated, knowing their full intention of overturning Roe v Wade once they had the numbers in place?

Of course.

I'm not uncomfortable calling it lying because they certainly didn't tell the truth, something that should be obvious now, even to you.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

Incoming "ThAT's NoT AcKShULlY LyINg" in 3, 2, 1....