Posted on 05/04/2022 8:17:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Any death threats yet from the mostly peaceful PROtestors?
no worries. Pierre Delecto and Susan Collins will come to the Rat’s rescue..
If the Democrats crafted a bill that protected abortions at least through the first trimester, they'd get their 60 votes in the Senate. If they're greedy and want to protect abortions all the way to full term, I doubt that they'd get all 50 Democrat votes.
AFAIK, the Partial Birth Abortion ban is still on the books after a Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.
Those “peaceful” death threats are something else. How about them
“peaceful” pro-abortionists threatening to burn down the Supreme Court. If Obama’s FBI guys ever hear about this the “peaceful” pro-abortion radicals may get a “May Fifth” investigation slap on the wrist by Feral “judges”. Clowns. Washington D.C. is full of clowns.
The demonmdriven hatred coming out-of Warren’s eyes and scrunched up facial features was really telling. Her inner demons were really really angry because women can’t murder unborn children wherever they want anymore
Imagine the sick twisted hatred dwelling inside people like her who are fire-spitting furious that they can t murder unborn anymore at will
Manchin? He knows West Virginia isn't even close enough to steal . . . yet!
Abortion is a STATE’s rights issue, not a Federal one.
... the inaccurate and grossly named “Women’s Health Protection Act,”
—
Flick’s Rule 42. The meaning of every bill proposed by Congress is the exact opposite of its title.
RE: ... the inaccurate and grossly named “Women’s Health Protection Act,”
Democrats like to name their bills to FOOL people into believing what opposite of what the bill’s effect really is.
For instance, “Affordable Care Act”? Really? Healthcare premiums have gone nowhere buy UP since its passing.
The Congess has no Constitutional right to make abortion legal by statute.
What I find surprising is that Sinema seems to be the only Democrat that understands that the filibuster potentially helps both parties. Are the rest of them unable to comprehend that they might not have the majority in the future? I guess that’s the arrogance that comes from stealing elections.
Regardless of the prospects in the Senate, the House will still have to try to pass a bill. That may create a problem for Democrats because the progressives will insist on “until birth”, plus government funding, which plays terribly politically and would alienate moderates. The Democrat infighting over the scope of an abortion rights bill in Congress — regardless of whether Congress regulating abortion is ultimately deemed constitutional or not — may blunt a lot of the political gain they might otherwise hope for.
Some get pregnant so they can have an abortion.
Is it possible that the Supreme Court hasn't really decided and Alito, and one of the liberals, were BOTH assigned to write opinions and then they'd vote after reviewing both opinions, but the 2nd opinion has not been leaked, nor will it be?
Might be fun if you posted Rules 1-41 as well.
“Pierre Delecto and Susan Collins will come to the Rat’s rescue..”
I’ve been reading the retorts on this thread and, as usual, the people are not considering the actions but banking on the numbers.
There never has been a body of government lawmakers that are as they state. People have been led down the path that the senate is a 50/50 situation. Sorry, no. Like you pointed out, it is made up of people that lean toward a philosophy of their idea of government.
The media can use the terminology of 50/50, but not every democrat is liberal and not every republican is conservative. And this is why votes vary in the houses while the politicians care more for themselves and less for their constituents. And if you are a conservative, and want the government to accomplish things you voted for, you need to vote out those that don’t follow the line you were misrepresented about. And people that voted for some of the people going in based upon their party affiliation and not their consistency of representation, are being mislead.
wy69
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Although desperate, election year Democrats evidently want post-17th Amendment ratification, constitutionally low-information voters to think otherwise, patriots are reminded that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause doesn't work with bogus federal laws that the states haven't expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make.
More specifically, the Constitution's silence on Democratic and RINO vote-winning, politically correct power to murder unborn children has never been enumerated in the Constitution.
"Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis added]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Insights welcome.
Next, from an election year-related thread...
We have a very corrupt, alleged election-stealing, elite Democratic and RINO-controlled Congress that cannot be expected to its constitutionally enumerated duty to expel Constitution-ignoring career lawmakers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 (1.5.2) or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
"Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member [emphasis added]."
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
So it's up to Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters to peacefully exercise their voting power in 2022 midterm elections to effectively make 1.5.2 and Section 3 work, applying Section 3 to both federal and state governments.
And speaking of voting power, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates. (Good work OH patriots yesterday primary.)
Again, insights welcome.
When I watched Warren my first thought was like yours, she is really angry about this decision. But then I realize she doesn’t really give a damn about unborn babies — it’s just about the power and how DARE they try to undermine what the Democrats have made their signature issue? DON’T THEY KNOW WHO I AM??? More temper tantrum than any kind of true belief system. They cannot stand being denied.
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.