To be fair, I wouldn’t trust Bill Gates to protect me from viruses either.
Yeah, all he can do is nag you to constantly update yourself.
Michelle Bachmann: The Bible warned us that Black transgender Marxists would try to elect Biden President.
How’s he doing with giving COVID a blowjob?
The Bible also warned about the coming of the Antichrist; filling people’s heads with lies. For 2000 years, that was the message. Then people like Michele helped elect him President!
The Bible?
Notwithstanding the fact that I personally don’t accept that text as authoritative on ANY subject, I’d be grateful if you’d unpack that for me, chapter and verse, Mrs. Bachman.
If nothing else, it should prove amusing.
They don’t even nag anymore. They just update you whether you want it or not!
He might not be doing a good job with COVID, but he’s got a wicked bass line. pffffffff
And then tell you that you need to restart.
Trump’s claim to be protecting Americans from panic by lying about the severity of the COVID-19 health crisis was pretty damned stupid. Not only did he blame Democrats for speaking the truth, but he let 150,000 plus Americans die, so that they would not feel stressed out. I think he flat out lied because he didn’t want to face the problem, but claiming that he treated everyone like children, so as to avoid panic, is perhaps even worse than actually being a lazy, uncaring SOB.
Tom Cotton, after he showed up on the list of potential Individual 1 Supreme Court nominees:
“It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.”
So they aren’t even going to pretend to not have preconceived views, huh?
Well, how mature could Americans be? They elected Trump, after all.
You can’t blame them - after all, once the views have been preconceived, they can’t abort them.
Any one who hasn’t decided where they are on Roe v Wade is either completely detached from the American experience or lying. In particular, I would not be surprised that a Harvard lawyer has come to a conclusion on the merits of the case (even if he IMHO is wrong). It is a decided case - I would expect a justice (or prospective justice) to withhold expressing an opinion on any pending cases, but not something already decided.
I remember brother #3 (liberal Harvard lawyer as it turns out) discussing with brother #4 the complete impossibility of Clarence Thomas not having a fully formed opinion on the correctness of Roe v. Wade during Thomas’s confirmation hearing.
What @Folacin said.
Any Supreme Court nominee who can’t or won’t answer whether they believe Roe v. Wade to have been correctly decided is being completely disingenuous.
It’s also worth noting that one’s opinion of the decision need not necessarily comport with one’s opinion about abortion. I’m one of the (maybe, being generous) one percent of Americans who has actually read the whole opinion, the concurrences, and the dissents in Roe, and has also read in their entirety the opinions, concurrences and dissents in related cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, as well as later abortion-related cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and June Medical Services v. Russo.
I support, absolutely and unequivocally, a woman’s right to procure an abortion, for any reason or for no reason. In my ideal world, governments (federal, state, or local) would not attempt to put any barriers in the way of abortion access. And I’m still not in complete agreement with the rationale used to support a constitutional right to abortion in cases like Roe.
Why should they?
Would you have the same criticism of a potential Supreme Court nominee who stood up and said, “I believe, based on my legal training and experience, that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, and if appointed to the court my rulings will reflect that analysis”?
Well, it tends to be the pro-life nominee’s who pretend to not have an opinion, probably because the majority of American’s don’t want to ban abortion (although many would support more restrictions then we currently have in place). So they have to dance around the question to get confirmed (or used to, at any rate).
I don’t think the problem is that Tom Cotton disagrees with Roe v. Wade. Many people do. The problem is that, by saying it’s time for it to “go”, shows that, if put on the Court, he has no problem ignoring stare decisis to get the result he wants. That’s the real issue. He’s a judicial activist. He clearly states he has no issue ignoring 40+ years of precedent and all the cases that have upheld Roe v. Wades’ holding.
He’s on Asshole in Chief’s list because of that fact. It’s a blatant effort to get somewhat sane Republicans back into Trump’s camp by promising to stack the judiciary and overturn Roe. The question is how many deaths, how much corruption, how many lies, how many laws broken, how much damage to this country are those Republicans going to tolerate so they can get control of the Supreme Court. So far, it’s been a whole hell of alot of all those evils.
And this is straight up politicizing.
It is saying that if we reelect Trump, then he will probably get a chance to overturn Roe V Wade.
Not that SCOTUS hasn’t been politicized, but at least we pretended that it was not. This admits that it is simply a political tool to be wielded by whichever party happens to be able to nominate and confirm justices.
I see where you’re coming from here, but judicial activism can take a variety of forms. For example, I can see the argument that Roe itself was the judicial activism, and that overturning it would be effectively engaging in a proper reading of the Constitution.
I tend to agree with Clarence Thomas on the general point here: if a decision was wrong, the court should be willing to say it was wrong, and reach the right decision based on the facts of the case and the constitution. I understand that the court shouldn’t just overthrow prior decisions for the sake of it, and that there is considerable value in continuity and predictability and reliance on prior case law, but I also don’t think we should hold stare decisis up as the legal god to which we owe greatest obeisance.
Should the court have found for the the Topeka Board of Education in 1954, and upheld Plessy v. Ferguson out of deference to its own prior rulings? Should the court now countenance internment based on ethnicity out of deference to Korematsu v. United States, which has never been over-ruled?
These are hard questions. The problem here, I think, is that there are some people who treat them as the difficult questions that they are, and might reach different outcomes based on an honest and genuine effort to apply the legal and constitutional principles involved. Cotton, though, seems like one of those people who works back from political outcomes and would shoehorn in whatever theory of the case happens to accord with his preferred results.