Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Follies

Page 82 of 85« First<79808182838485>
February 23rd, 2026 at 2:45:23 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195
Quote: missedhervee
Huh?

I thought that Christians believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


You also believe SCOTUS is not allowed to overturn its own bad decisions so what you think is not all that accurate.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
February 23rd, 2026 at 7:02:28 PM permalink
GenoDRPh
Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831
Quote: missedhervee
Huh?

I thought that Christians believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

What, aren't you a True Believer?

Based on literal interpretations of biblical genealogies in Genesis and other scriptures, many Christians estimate the Earth is approximately 6,000 to 6,500 years old.

This calculation adds roughly 4,000 years from creation to Christ, plus the 2,000 years since, famously calculated by Archbishop Ussher as starting in 4004 BC.

Biblical Calculation Method: This timeframe is derived by adding the lifespans and generations listed in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham, and subsequently calculating time from Abraham to Jesus.

So which do you favor: science or superstition?


You shouldn't generalize what people believe. It's up to tehm to decide what t belief and what not to believe.

Don't be like the muslim-hating SoooPoo and insult other people religion.
February 23rd, 2026 at 10:44:35 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 160
Posts: 5484
Quote: AZDuffman
You also believe SCOTUS is not allowed to overturn its own bad decisions so what you think is not all that accurate.


No, I argued that they don't follow stare decisis, opting to place political considerations front and center over legal ones.

Sorry, you're outmatched...go sniff a bicycle seat.
February 24th, 2026 at 4:19:07 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195
Quote: missedhervee
No, I argued that they don't follow stare decisis, opting to place political considerations front and center over legal ones.


Same thing.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
February 24th, 2026 at 10:50:38 AM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 160
Posts: 5484
Quote: AZDuffman
Same thing.


No, it is not the "same thing."

American law is based on English law primarily and a fundamental tenet has always been stare decisis, i.e. paying homage to and following "established law."

Changing for political reasons as opposed to following established precedent is basically anathema to the practice of law as it removes certainty from any analysis.

Which is not to say that the USSC is prohibited from doing what it did: I am saying that in doing so it makes a near-mockery of the legal process as there was no new evidence to justify the 180 degree sea change viz. abortion, i.e. the facts remain the same but the outcome differs for only political reasons.

Bad show, that....
February 24th, 2026 at 1:01:29 PM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5738
Quote: missedhervee
No, it is not the "same thing."

American law is based on English law primarily and a fundamental tenet has always been stare decisis, i.e. paying homage to and following "established law."

Changing for political reasons as opposed to following established precedent is basically anathema to the practice of law as it removes certainty from any analysis.

Which is not to say that the USSC is prohibited from doing what it did: I am saying that in doing so it makes a near-mockery of the legal process as there was no new evidence to justify the 180 degree sea change viz. abortion, i.e. the facts remain the same but the outcome differs for only political reasons.

Bad show, that....


Remember, SOOPOO is pro abortion rights. But everything I’ve ever read about ‘Roe’ was that it was a ‘wrong decision’. That it should never have been ruled that way. That it’s overturning was obviously the correct decision from a purely ‘Interpreting the law’ perspective. Abortion wasn’t made illegal by the USSC. That decision was left up to individual states.
You want a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine abortion rights as a law of the land? Our Constitution tells you how to accomplish that.
February 24th, 2026 at 1:20:26 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195
Quote: SOOPOO
Remember, SOOPOO is pro abortion rights. But everything I’ve ever read about ‘Roe’ was that it was a ‘wrong decision’. That it should never have been ruled that way. That it’s overturning was obviously the correct decision from a purely ‘Interpreting the law’ perspective. Abortion wasn’t made illegal by the USSC. That decision was left up to individual states.
You want a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine abortion rights as a law of the land? Our Constitution tells you how to accomplish that.


Like gay marriage, Roe was probably made politically for the mood of the day. The Democrats could have put up a law (amendment is overkill) to regulate abortion at the federal level. They preferred to have the issue, same as when they declined to index minimum wage to inflation. They want the issue.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
February 24th, 2026 at 1:31:17 PM permalink
GenoDRPh
Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831
Quote: AZDuffman
Like gay marriage, Roe was probably made politically for the mood of the day. The Democrats could have put up a law (amendment is overkill) to regulate abortion at the federal level. They preferred to have the issue, same as when they declined to index minimum wage to inflation. They want the issue.


When since 1973 did the Dems have the political power to do so? When did they have control of the WH and both houses of Congress with a veto proof senate majority?

If Dems could've protected abortion via legislation, they would've done so at the earliest opportunity, and would have won the issue.
February 24th, 2026 at 2:12:02 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195
Quote: GenoDRPh
When since 1973 did the Dems have the political power to do so? When did they have control of the WH and both houses of Congress with a veto proof senate majority?

If Dems could've protected abortion via legislation, they would've done so at the earliest opportunity, and would have won the issue.


Under Obama for one. And they could have made a push for it any number of times. Nope, they want the issue because they care more about their power than about their base. Then again they openly say their biggest supporters are not intelligent enough to get an ID so what do you expect?
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
February 24th, 2026 at 3:29:48 PM permalink
GenoDRPh
Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831
Quote: AZDuffman
Under Obama for one. And they could have made a push for it any number of times. Nope, they want the issue because they care more about their power than about their base. Then again they openly say their biggest supporters are not intelligent enough to get an ID so what do you expect?


The last time there was a filibuster proof senate was in 1977.
Page 82 of 85« First<79808182838485>