Posted on 12/10/2018 7:35:37 AM PST by GIdget2004
That’s right.
Forced buying.
No, it is not.
What you say makes complete sense. There’s so much disappointment lately with voter fraud and ballot harvesting and a blind eye to it that this didn’t surprise me.
Until I have more evidence against Kavanaugh, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the situation. Roberts, on the other hand, I have the feeling has been compromised or corrupted along the way.
.
Sad!
.
.
>> “Remember, Roberts is ‘shaky’ and possubly compromised.” <<
Extreme understatement IMO!
We should not lay the blame on this failure on the feet of the states nor the SCOTUS. This is all on the do-nothing Congress who could not pass reform with a majority in both houses and the presidency.
This sounds like it’s about planned parenthood and not about abortion. As long as the government continues to buy the fiction that PP keeps abortion money separate from government money, there’s no way to build an case against PP.
“So the other three judges are way dumber than Kav and Traitor Roberts?”
No, it is just that, IMHO, a lot of this kind of thing goes on. Remember, many times if the USSC rules on an issue, that is pretty much IT for decades or longer. Even the Justices have to pick and choose carefully. I believe that Kavanaugh is on the anti-abortion side, but just thought better of letting this particular case go forward. There could be a dozen reasons why - and neither of us would necessarily have the slightest idea why. This is, IMHO, just like politics - equally smart people can disagree, and it means nothing other than that they are approaching the issue from 2 different perspectives.
Disappointing not because of the abortion issue (abet that is an important one), but disappointing as the court could have sent a clear message that only the legislative bodies of states have the budgetary power to spend money, not court fiat.
Then again, the arguments of the case completely ignored that basic concept.
The USSC seems pretty lazy in these days of ever increasing litigation against the Federal Government bureaucracy and Trump EOs.
The need to double their output or get the lesser courts to halve their’s.
But not wanting to hear the case seems like an even stronger upholding of the lower court decision. It’s saying I don’t even want to hear the arguments, just go away.
The courts still have the Constitutional obligation to strike down unconstitutional laws. Waiting for Congress to do it denies the real purpose of checks and balances.
Is he trying to ingratiate himself with the libs so they they will like him? Souter 2.0?
Yeah, I agree—poorly written.
If the funds are coming from the feds, presumably the feds can put contingencies on them. That’s where the feds get their paws all over everything the states do.
Note that sometimes a justice will turn away a case that he knows will not be decided the way he wants, leaving it for a more favorable hearing when newer justices might see it his way.
It’s wise to leave Roe vs Wade alone, or at least for the time being.
“It’s pretty sick when the so called Supreme Court believes that U.S. taxpayers should be forced to fund baby killers.
I believe that SCOTUS is saying that the Congress makes the laws and the country must follow the laws.”
Correct....
This has nothing really to do with abortion, but about accepting federal funding.
Don’t accept it, and do whatever you want. Do accept it, and you have to follow the LEGISLATED rules that come with it. Nothing is stopping any state from turning down the money.
Pull out of Medicaid then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.