I am pretty sure you are right. He had her in mind already. I also think it is strategic his wanting to nominate a woman. First woman on SCOTUS that has read the constitution and understands it. Now that is an accomplishment! :lol:

I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others.  Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights.  I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics.  Judges should be non biased.

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She
would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and
the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than
women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said.
“It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered,
it was physician-centered.”

I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others.  Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights.  I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics.  Judges should be non biased.

Roe V. Wade was just bad law.  The right to privacy is not in the Constitution, so to extrapolate that into having an abortion was nothing more than a decision looking for a legal justification, no matter how flimsy.

Ever wonder why a woman can kill a baby growing inside her because "her body, her choice", but you can't take drugs recreationally?  She's killing a growing child, while you'd only be hurting yourself.

Doesn't seem like equal protection under the law, does it?


But, let's ask Ruthie how she felt...

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

reality doesn't work that way...

Tbh I think drugs and other things should be legal.  Along with suicide and selling parts of your body.  That's all personal freedom.
 But that's another discussion. But the difference is that the manufacturer of the products and distribution is trouble. Aborting is truly only affecting yourself.  Taking meth, means someone most likely gang related sold it.  Someone cooked it etc etc.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop striving for it.  I think putting a religious nut is anti effort

having strong religious convictions doesn't make you a "religious nut"...

I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others.  Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights.  I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics.  Judges should be non biased.

There are sound arguments, philosophical, ethical, and legal, against abortion, homosexual "marriage", "transgender" participation in female sports, etc. that don't depend even one iota on any religious belief or doctrine.

You sound like that libertarian whose video is posted on the other thread in "political" who wants a justice that will affirm hard core arms rights but not interfere with the (all-time misleading euphemism) "right to choose". The "official" libertarian line is also "open borders" because there is no clear and direct individual harmed when a non-U.S. citizen steps into the territory of the U.S. without having undergone the current legal process. People who have neither harmed anyone nor have any intent to harm anyone "should" be allowed to travel freely, right?

You're not likely to find a lawyer/judge who believes in "originalism", or the "text, history, and tradition" mode of Constitutional interpretation/understanding and therefore strongly supports the rights protected by the Second Amendment and who at the same time thinks that abortions should be "legal" because of some "right to privacy" lurking in some penumbra somewhere. Just sayin'...

If the drugs were legal to possess and use, the criminal elements of production and distribution would be destroyed.

Corporations would be importing, growing, producing and selling the substances, and the gov't would be taxing and regulating them for safety, just like all other prescription and OTC drugs now.

No need for a black market when there's free and open trade on the legitimate markets.

I am not really an libertarian though I do share many of the beliefs.  To this day I have things I agree with all 3 different parties.  As for the open borders.  I am not against a country ruling the entire world then we can establish universal freedoms.  Until then borders are important because countries are important and patriotism is good.  My freedoms shouldn't be infringed by others who don't pay taxes and respect the law.

As to the orginialism why wouldn't I?  IF they truly believed in the constitution they can see the forefathers beyond clearly wanted the separation of state and religion.  Anti abortion is only a religious concept.

That is a false statement, as I noted in my comment: There are philosophical, ethical, medical, and legal arguments against abortion that are in no way dependent upon any religious belief or doctrine.

Please explain those concepts.  I have never heard them being in used before.

Scientific:  Life begins at conception.  You don't have to base that opinion on religion.  Science tells us that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it develops a DNA profile that is a combination of the parents' DNA that's unique from either parent.  If allowed to develop, the embryo created will be as viable in 9 months as any child.  Believing that a child must be separated from the mother to be counted as a person is naive.  Children are born premature everyday and required to begin their lives in an incubator.  Perhaps we should restrict such medical treatments from newborns -- only the string will be allowed to live?

Its all about will, its your choice to put the baby in an incubator, just like you have a choice to use a surrogate or a tube.  Forcing someone to do something for 9 months and to have no choice is anti- freedom.

More science:  a fetus is a living organism.  Only living organisms are capable of the kind of development they undertake during gestation.  If they were "just a clump of cells", they would be incapable of developing into a living, breathing human being.

The capability of something does not dictate the present.   I am capable of being a billionaire does that mean I am one?

Consciousness:  Children exhibit behaviors after birth which were affected by their environment.  Children recognize their mother's voice, her heartbeat and even the mother's singing after birth.  These are proven facts, and show a level of consciousness that proves children are sentient beings long before their birth.

Animals recognize voices are they human?  You are grasping straws here

Privacy:  Women are able to make choices with their own bodies.  But biology teaches us that the child is NOT part of the woman's body.  It is a different body given the lack of identical DNA compared to the mother's.  How can the woman claim a body growing inside her womb is "her body" given the proven science of the situation?  The woman should have exercised RESPONSIBILITY for her body through responsible use of birth control or choosing to abstain from sexual intercourse.  No, I'm not talking about actions she had no choice in like rape and incest.  Those are exception most people agree should be treated as such -- exceptions.  That also includes abortions to save the mother's life.  Less than 1% of pregnancies involve threats to the mother's life or health.  Again, this is a rare exception.

A women is needed for a child to be born,  if the women does not want the child to grow in her then she has the right to void the child.  If you want to save the child grow it in a tube for all I care.  Even if you think a mass of cells is a "person"  you should also agree that one "person" doesn't have the right to force-ably make another person do something for 9 months.

Political viewpoint:  Why is it Pro-Aborion advocates are quick to tell anti-abortion activists "don't force your views on others."  Isn't that exactly what they want the government to do to the Pro-Lifers?  If taxes are used to fund Planned Parenthood, Pro-Lifers are having views they disagree with forced upon them.

Taxes are not used? what? I will agree with you taxes should not directly fund abortions.  That way NEITHER party forces their view on the other. 

Lots of other things I could add, but this is a good start.  Maybe try some research on your own:

Taxes are not used? what? I will agree with you taxes should not directly fund abortions.  That way NEITHER party forces their view on the other.

In 2018-2019, the abortion business was also on the receiving end of $616.8 million in American taxpayer funds,
a 9.4 percent jump from the $563.8 million it received in year 2017-2018.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/planned-parenthood-annual-report-record-high-abortions-and-taxpayer-funding/

PP likes to say they don't "directly" fund abortions with taxes.  They raise funds from donors.  in other words, it's an accounting game.  For every dollar they get in taxes is a dollar they can divert from administrative and other services to fund abortions.

That rationale is a distinction without a difference.  Taxes still fund the ORGANIZATION, and the people who are Pro-Life don't want taxes to support the organization at all, because it enables them indirectly to do more abortions.  Anyone who takes accounting learns that the bottom line is what matters, not which lines the revenue and expenses are allocated on.

So basically that means hospitals fund abortions, doctors do, clinics, anyone medical.  All medical insurance funds abortions too, government and private. Cause that applies to everyone.  That's just silly.   Planned parenthood doesn't only do abortions you know....you make it seam like they are "abortions r us".

I guess the only way to make you happy is if the taxes had a check box to allow you tax dollars to fund pro choice.  Then those who support can directly have their taxes help and those who don't have the choice not to.

In the past year, Planned Parenthood performed 345,672 abortions, an increase of nearly 13,000 more abortions and four percent
over the 332,757 the group performed during year 2017-2018.

The number of abortions performed in 2017-2018 was 11,373 more than the abortions performed the year before that,
a trend that shows that while Planned Parenthood officials once said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” today they omit t
he word “rare” in their mantra as they perform more abortions each year.

In its analysis of the data, pro-life news outlet Live Action News noted that, in the past decade, “abortions at Planned Parenthood
have risen nearly seven percent (6.67%) from 324,008 in 2008 to 345,672 in 2018.

In 2018-2019, the abortion business was also on the receiving end of $616.8 million in American taxpayer funds, a 9.4 percent
jump from the $563.8 million it received in year 2017-2018.

“Government health services reimbursements and grants” remains the largest source of income for Planned Parenthood at 37
percent – largely from the Medicaid program – followed by “private contributions and bequests” at 36 percent.

In year 2018-2019, Planned Parenthood’s total revenue was more than $1.6 billion, and its net assets for the year was nearly $2
billion.

Once again, Live Action News observed Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer income over the last decade has risen 69.8 percent,
“from $363.2 million in 2008 to $616.8 million in taxpayer dollars in 2018.”

[Planned Parenthood] has long (and falsely) claimed that abortions make up just three percent of its services, a claim that has
been debunked multiple times. Planned Parenthood’s abortion market share currently stands at 40% when compared to the most
recent data from the Guttmacher Institute for 2017. That means Planned Parenthood alone commits 40% of all the abortions in
the United States. This number may increase after the Guttmacher Institute releases new national abortion statistics.

The report also observed that Planned Parenthood provided less than 1.4 percent of the nation’s HIV tests and less than 1 percent
of pap tests. Additionally, in the previous five years, service-to-client ratios for breast exams and pap tests had declined by 37 percent.

“Severing the link between taxpayers and the abortion conglomerate that is Planned Parenthood has never been more important,
because you get more of what you pay for and less of what you tax,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America in
a statement sent to Breitbart News.

The organization touts in its newly released annual report that it now provides “services for transgender patients” in 31 states