Schumers apology was weak if it was an apology at all. He said it was because he was from Brooklyn. Again as i stated, blaming the other side for doing something then doing the same thing is the height of hypocracy. I guess they gave up on the whole if they go low we go high doctrene.
Originally posted by: vegasdawn
That is mostly my understanding too, and I don't see why that is controversial. The only difference I thought was that the individual abortion provider (hopefully a Doctor, but not necessarily the way things go in these clinics) must have admitting rights in a local hospital.
Again, it seems to be more about protecting women than anything else. How can this be controversial as to have that lunatic Shumer to go off the way he did?
You and Boilerman are swallowing the conservative propaganda.
This isn't about abortion safety; it's about restricting abortion. Under the law being challenged, abortion providers MUST have access to a major hospital where abortion patients can be admitted. Here's the kicker:
1. No hospital is obligated to grant such access.
2. Said hospital must be a major facility (with an emergency room) and only a few miles away.
So ALL rural abortion clinics would have to shut down, and most urban ones as well--since most hospitals in Louisiana do NOT grant emergency admitting privileges to abortion providers (see #1, above).
The result of the law, if enacted, would be that there would be exactly one abortion clinic able to operate in the entire state of Louisiana.
That isn't about "protecting women." It's about functionally preventing them from obtaining abortions. It's an end run around Roe v. Wade. A similar law was passed in Texas that would have forced half of the abortion clinics to shut down, but that law did not survive appeals court challenges. Louisiana being even more medieval than Texas, the law there has survived several such challenges.
The fact is that women who have abortions in abortion clinics only very, very rarely need hospital care afterward. So this has never been about women's safety.
Originally posted by: Rightdownthemiddle
Schumers apology was weak if it was an apology at all. He said it was because he was from Brooklyn. Again as i stated, blaming the other side for doing something then doing the same thing is the height of hypocracy. I guess they gave up on the whole if they go low we go high doctrene.
Yes, it was weak compared to Trump's eloquent apologies for all the nasty things he's said about his opponents, or Fox News/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh's extended apologies for their comments and insults directed at liberals, or Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell's abject confessions...
Or maybe there were no such apologies. I'm not 100% sure.
You really are too intelligent to adopt a Trump-style false equivalence argument. Trump shits on everyone and everything and pitches dozens of stupid insults every day--as do his lackeys in the House and the Senate and those running his propaganda networks. Schumer briefly lost it while addressing the Supreme Court---ONCE. And yes, discount it if you wish, but Schumer apologized, while Trump and his goons have never apologized for anything.
So how are the two even remotely comparable?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yes, it was weak compared to Trump's eloquent apologies for all the nasty things he's said about his opponents, or Fox News/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh's extended apologies for their comments and insults directed at liberals, or Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell's abject confessions...
Or maybe there were no such apologies. I'm not 100% sure.
You really are too intelligent to adopt a Trump-style false equivalence argument. Trump shits on everyone and everything and pitches dozens of stupid insults every day--as do his lackeys in the House and the Senate and those running his propaganda networks. Schumer briefly lost it while addressing the Supreme Court---ONCE. And yes, discount it if you wish, but Schumer apologized, while Trump and his goons have never apologized for anything.
So how are the two even remotely comparable?
You're also too smart to adopt false equivalence arguments. Hannity and Limbaugh may speak to his base but do not speak FOR Trump, just as Maddow and Lemon speak to the lefts base but dont speak FOR them. Hypocracy is Hypocracy and defending Schumer in this is wrong. He is the a high ranking memeber of congress and did infer violence in what he said. Defending him or the person who incites the next group is wrong.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Assuming that what you meant was "from the bench," do you have any support whatsoever for that broad generalization, or are you just expressing your ideological beliefs?
Don't forget, the current abortion law challenge before the court was brought by CONSERVATIVES. They're the ones trying to change the Constitution. Scalia (not "Scolia") was expressing the opinion that Roe v. Wade had already settled the question of whether or not abortion was unconstitutional.
What makes your statement so stupid is that the liberal Supreme Court judges agree with him wholeheartedly.
You love to make broad, sweeping statements about what liberals think and want, and those statements are almost never even remotely correct. You've shown repeatedly that you don't even know what liberalism is.
Kevin, once again, ignores the question. Should judges ignore the Constitution and apply their beliefs to their rulings, or should they rely strictly on the rule of law? Kevin, obviously believes that judges should rule from the bench, only making Liberally oriented judgements. I believe that if we want to reverse Row vs Wade, for example, it should begin with a Constitutional amendment. Kevin, very obviously, agrees with half of my stance.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin, once again, ignores the question. Should judges ignore the Constitution and apply their beliefs to their rulings, or should they rely strictly on the rule of law? Kevin, obviously believes that judges should rule from the bench, only making Liberally oriented judgements. I believe that if we want to reverse Row vs Wade, for example, it should begin with a Constitutional amendment. Kevin, very obviously, agrees with half of my stance.
Don't presume to tell everyone what I think. You have no idea what I think==hell, you aren't capable of understanding what I think. Even if you append "obviously" to your wrong guesses, over and over.
Here's a grammar-school civics lesson for Boilerbaby. The Supreme Court doesn't ignore the Constitution. However, it can interpret the Constitution. That was already done in Roe v. Wade. By the way, Boiler, Roe v. Wade is NOT a Constitutional amendment. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment cannot "reverse" it.
I'll educate Boiler a bit further. The Court decides what cases it will hear. Therefore, it will make only CONSERVATIVE rulings--especially since it is now solidly in Trump's camp. Schumer's anger was about the fact that the justices should have referred to Roe v. Wade as "settled law"--meaning that they should have instantly granted the motion to overturn the Lousiana abortion restriction law.
Should judges rule according to their beliefs? No--but Trump's Supreme Court judges are doing that, over and over. Boilerman should be outraged.
