LaxPower Back-Up Stick

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:08 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

But.....let's just completely disregard OTHER sections of Art. 1.....

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,

When the US Constitution was ratified, the state of New Hampshire had THREE members of the House. 250 years later? NH has TWO. One less. Has New Hampshires population increased since the late 1700's

More members of the house means less power for others, more power to the people. No one cares. 435

435

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:20 am cradle, there remain lots of issues in which women are treated differently than men, unequally.

An Amendment would provide the Court with a consistent bedrock for consideration of all such issues.

Again, why not?

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:20 am cradle, there remain lots of issues in which women are treated differently than men, unequally.

An Amendment would provide the Court with a consistent bedrock for consideration of all such issues.

Again, why not?

No problems if they pass it. It does become sort of a double edged sword, especially in child custody cases. The mothers can no longer be granted custody based on their sex. You have to go to family court and get down into the weeds. Family courts are contentious enough as it is. More fathers might start fighting for custody knowing that legally they actually may have a chance of winning. I have a friend who went through such a court fight years ago. The mom was a real piece of work, totally unfit to raise the kids. The family court gave her full custody because the mom is normally the best choice for raising the kids. Needless to say in this case, it didn't work out well for the kids.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:22 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:08 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

But.....let's just completely disregard OTHER sections of Art. 1.....

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,

When the US Constitution was ratified, the state of New Hampshire had THREE members of the House. 250 years later? NH has TWO. One less. Has New Hampshires population increased since the late 1700's

More members of the house means less power for others, more power to the people. No one cares. 435

435

by that do you mean each representative will have less power per person? more targeted representation to a specific/ smaller band of people? or both or something else?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:22 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:08 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

But.....let's just completely disregard OTHER sections of Art. 1.....

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,

When the US Constitution was ratified, the state of New Hampshire had THREE members of the House. 250 years later? NH has TWO. One less. Has New Hampshires population increased since the late 1700's

More members of the house means less power for others, more power to the people. No one cares. 435

435

by that do you mean each representative will have less power per person? more targeted representation to a specific/ smaller band of people? or both or something else?

ardilla secreta wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:21 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:31 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:13 pm Abortion is not against "natural law". What the fu*k is a miscarriage? Nature's abortion!

... by the way, where is Cradle when God needs a good dressing down for performing abortions?

Correct. Mother nature is choosing to do it.
A mother intentionally and willfully choosing to abort their kid is against natural law. Against natural phenomena. Taking a viable pregnancy and ending it.

Yes. Keeping premies alive who never would have made it in the times of survival of the fittest (natural law) is against natural law too. So we can pick and choose where we want to interefere, no? Now again it comes back to moral views.

Is Kram advocating that it’s ok to have sex with a female once they start menstruating because it’s natural?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:43 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:20 am cradle, there remain lots of issues in which women are treated differently than men, unequally.

An Amendment would provide the Court with a consistent bedrock for consideration of all such issues.

Again, why not?

No problems if they pass it. It does become sort of a double edged sword, especially in child custody cases. The mothers can no longer be granted custody based on their sex. You have to go to family court and get down into the weeds. Family courts are contentious enough as it is. More fathers might start fighting for custody knowing that legally they actually may have a chance of winning. I have a friend who went through such a court fight years ago. The mom was a real piece of work, totally unfit to raise the kids. The family court gave her full custody because the mom is normally the best choice for raising the kids. Needless to say in this case, it didn't work out well for the kids.

I don't have a problem with custody cases being decided actually based on the merits of parenting. Not gender, not money. Parenting.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:28 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:22 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:08 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

But.....let's just completely disregard OTHER sections of Art. 1.....

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,

When the US Constitution was ratified, the state of New Hampshire had THREE members of the House. 250 years later? NH has TWO. One less. Has New Hampshires population increased since the late 1700's

More members of the house means less power for others, more power to the people. No one cares. 435

435

by that do you mean each representative will have less power per person? more targeted representation to a specific/ smaller band of people? or both or something else?

the elephant in the colosium .......

......other than being obvious, that the US Constitution demands a 10 year census to find out how many people are out there, and increase/decrease districts based on that census......Citizens U......business IS a powerful person

TAATS would have to spend way more to buy off Congress, certainly if we had more House members........

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:41 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:43 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:20 am cradle, there remain lots of issues in which women are treated differently than men, unequally.

An Amendment would provide the Court with a consistent bedrock for consideration of all such issues.

Again, why not?

No problems if they pass it. It does become sort of a double edged sword, especially in child custody cases. The mothers can no longer be granted custody based on their sex. You have to go to family court and get down into the weeds. Family courts are contentious enough as it is. More fathers might start fighting for custody knowing that legally they actually may have a chance of winning. I have a friend who went through such a court fight years ago. The mom was a real piece of work, totally unfit to raise the kids. The family court gave her full custody because the mom is normally the best choice for raising the kids. Needless to say in this case, it didn't work out well for the kids.

I don't have a problem with custody cases being decided actually based on the merits of parenting. Not gender, not money. Parenting.

Not money?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:26 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:28 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:22 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:08 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Maybe what we need is a strong willed POTUS with a pen and a cell phone? All this legal court nonsense can be squared away with one good hearty executive order. Who needs the courts when the nation has the power of an executive order right at its fingertips.

Good idea, except for that being unconstitutional under Art. 1, section 4 (which gives the authority over these elections to the states).

So the Constitution tells POTUS to butt out. Most people would think that also means the federal courts should butt out too. Especially five days before the election.

But.....let's just completely disregard OTHER sections of Art. 1.....

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,

When the US Constitution was ratified, the state of New Hampshire had THREE members of the House. 250 years later? NH has TWO. One less. Has New Hampshires population increased since the late 1700's

More members of the house means less power for others, more power to the people. No one cares. 435

435

by that do you mean each representative will have less power per person? more targeted representation to a specific/ smaller band of people? or both or something else?

the elephant in the colosium .......

......other than being obvious, that the US Constitution demands a 10 year census to find out how many people are out there, and increase/decrease districts based on that census......Citizens U......business IS a powerful person

TAATS would have to spend way more to buy off Congress, certainly if we had more House members........

yup. no idea what you're talking about.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:26 pm
2. Polls say that 56% of Catholics say abortion should be legal in most/all cases.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:31 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:23 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:12 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:04 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:06 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:57 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:22 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:02 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:55 pm CS, Kra -- could you please start a separate thread to discuss the morality of abortion for those who are interested?

100% does not belong in this thread. Which is about law, not personal moral views.

I'm blocking you now because (like many others on here) I'm not interested in discussing that topic.

Thx

Yes, agreed. Please.

Sorry coaster there has been much angst here from many about the SCOTUS overturning RvW. The last I checked that was kinda, sorta a legal issue involving the SCOTUS. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt the feelings of some overly sensitive lawyers. If they want to whine about RvW being overturned I will respond accordingly. I will not let them have it both ways. If they don't want to hear opposing opinion stop whining about overturning RvW. I'm all on board with that.

I haven’t whined about Roe v. Wade. Anywhere. I just think the topic is supercharged with much, much more than law. And deserves its own thread for people who really want to “discuss” the issues. The SCOTUS thread can include reproductive rights issues, but the new thread would be a better place to raise the range of social and other pieces of the reproductive rights issue.

And I said please.

You won't hear another peep from me. I said what I had to say. I didn't realize some of our legal eagles were getting hot around the collar about it.

#QFP -

I never realized lawyers were such a bunch of snowflakes. They get almost as ticked off about this topic here as they would if their Bruno Magli wingtips had a scuff on them .

This lawyer is bored, not upset. I agree with everything NJBill has said. Until the Court tackles Roe, I don't need to talk about the issues. And don't need to be characterized, or see women characterized as murderers. There hasn't been a discussion, just folks conveying a lot of less-informed, empathy-free blather.

I disagree with everything NJB has to say. I do respect his opinion on the sense RvW is the law of the land and should not be changed. FYI my opinion is also reinforced by the experience my wife endured actually working in these rooms and assisting in procedures. Her experience does not fit your criteria of less informed empathy free blather. She has been there and done the dirty work in the trenches...and what she did and saw was repulsive to her. I guess from your perspective that doesn't matter. You would never want to have this conversation with my wife. You don't like my perspective I guarantee you will not like hers. Until the court ever brings this up this is the last I will say about, this time for sure.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:31 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:23 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:12 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:04 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:06 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:57 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:22 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:02 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:55 pm CS, Kra -- could you please start a separate thread to discuss the morality of abortion for those who are interested?

100% does not belong in this thread. Which is about law, not personal moral views.

I'm blocking you now because (like many others on here) I'm not interested in discussing that topic.

Thx

Yes, agreed. Please.

Sorry coaster there has been much angst here from many about the SCOTUS overturning RvW. The last I checked that was kinda, sorta a legal issue involving the SCOTUS. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt the feelings of some overly sensitive lawyers. If they want to whine about RvW being overturned I will respond accordingly. I will not let them have it both ways. If they don't want to hear opposing opinion stop whining about overturning RvW. I'm all on board with that.

I haven’t whined about Roe v. Wade. Anywhere. I just think the topic is supercharged with much, much more than law. And deserves its own thread for people who really want to “discuss” the issues. The SCOTUS thread can include reproductive rights issues, but the new thread would be a better place to raise the range of social and other pieces of the reproductive rights issue.

And I said please.

You won't hear another peep from me. I said what I had to say. I didn't realize some of our legal eagles were getting hot around the collar about it.

#QFP -

I never realized lawyers were such a bunch of snowflakes. They get almost as ticked off about this topic here as they would if their Bruno Magli wingtips had a scuff on them .

This lawyer is bored, not upset. I agree with everything NJBill has said. Until the Court tackles Roe, I don't need to talk about the issues. And don't need to be characterized, or see women characterized as murderers. There hasn't been a discussion, just folks conveying a lot of less-informed, empathy-free blather.

I disagree with everything NJB has to say. I do respect his opinion on the sense RvW is the law of the land and should not be changed. FYI my opinion is also reinforced by the experience my wife endured actually working in these rooms and assisting in procedures. Her experience does not fit your criteria of less informed empathy free blather. She has been there and done the dirty work in the trenches...and what she did and saw was repulsive to her. I guess from your perspective that doesn't matter. You would never want to have this conversation with my wife. You don't like my perspective I guarantee you will not like hers. Until the court ever brings this up this is the last I will say about, this time for sure.

The reality of abortion is ghastly. It's why pro abortion people don't want to talk/see/hear/engage about it.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... y-abortion

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:38 pm Paula Deen's Baby Back ribs.