It is a real question. I see that quote posted so many times that it comes off more like a marketing slogan with no substance. What do you think it means?
1 Like
I believe @Andrewgen_Receptors described the conservative position succinctly.
Don’t you?
2 Likes
I think it means exactly what the fuck it meant when it was written originally. There isn’t a compromise here; agree with it and we’re cool. Don’t agree with it, then get the fuck out.
It’s really quite straight forward.
2 Likes
Yeah I think so.
I would like all to be firmly aware that anytime a compromise is asked of the conservative position, that you are asking for them to lose, even if it might be only a small amount. Compromise is always a liberal victory, even if it is very small victory. It is a victory, nonetheless.
We hear “America just wants Congress to compromise.” Be sure you know that is not what true conservatives want.
1 Like
This will probably come off as a stupid question, but what purpose does congress serve at all?
What more do you need than your bill of rights?
You’re participating in a discussion about Roe v. Wade without understanding the function of Congress?
No wonder we end up with so many confident Democrat voters.
Congress creates laws. This is a central criticism of the verdict in question. In the case of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court “passed” a law instead of Congress.
3 Likes
The purpose of congress is to create laws
The purpose of the president is to enforce laws
The purpose of the justice is to interpret laws
1 Like
Was only asking and did preface it by saying it was probably a stupid question.
Just seems that any law passed can always be interpreted as a right or a freedom being lost.
@hmm87 where are you from?
Congress passes laws. The Bill of Rights defines what those laws CANNOT do.
I don’t agree that that criticism is necessarily correct. It is subjective I think. I think the 1972 SCOTUS would argue that they interpreted article 14 to include abortion, not pass a law.
But don’t you agree that the Supreme Court “passed” it, because they didn’t believe that Congress could?
If Roe v. Wade didn’t achieve the same effect as creating new laws, why did Democrats immediately push to codify Roe into law through…
wait for it…
Congress?
1 Like
SCOTUS rulings can have an effect like a law being passed.
Exactly. That doesn’t mean they should. Striking down bad laws is one thing, and well within their purview. Creating new legislation is not.
1 Like
I think they (the 1972 SCOTUS) would argue that the right existed since the 14th was codified. That they didn’t grant the right, just explained that that right was already there.
I get what you are saying too. Just looking at it from a different angle.
Then why did they set parameters such as viability and term?
To me, that is creating a law when you are outlining such things.
When a law needs to be interpreted as a political question or is so unclear that it can be taken both ways - it isn’t a good law and the justice should remand it back to Congress for clarification.
1 Like
I appreciate you taking the time to write that up. I’ll respond when I have time later.
1 Like
And @hmm87 and @Andrewgen_Receptors, here’s the letter in which the the quote is found:
2 Likes