ART OF THE DEAL: Trump floats middle ground in abortion wars.

Fake News. The Constitution, in a constitutional Liberal Democracy is Never moot.

The Court recognized that the previous Court's decision made an unconstitutional claim, and reversed it.

You're claiming that Dobbs forbids the Federal Legislature from passing abortion regulation? Let me pull the case, I have no idea why you are making that claim.

I see nothing in the majority decision that supports your extravagant claim. You'll have to pull quote what part of the decision you are referring to.

 

As that was your response to this--

DEFinning said: ↑
In what manner, first of all, does that even apply to my argument? I had acknowledged the pragmatic reality, that the new ruling was (for the time being), the law of the land. This makes your point, above*, completely moot. (Or can you not follow that?)...
<End Quote>

I have to wonder if you, recently or perhaps even today, have experienced a stroke, which is interfering with your mind's ability to process information-- as I clearly say nothing of the sort, that "the Constitution" is moot. Where do you see me making such an over the top assertion?

Rather, I say that your point is moot. If the explanation for your perplexing reply, is that you equate your own arguments, with our country's Constitution, then that would point to different diagnoses.


*Here is your point, which I called "moot:"

Zorro said: ↑
...I said quite clearly and quite accurately that Roe was based on a lie about the constitution.


As my argument proceeds from the foundational assumption of Roe being dead-- your reply makes no sense, whatsoever. I have already explained this self-evident fact, to you. If you are so incapable of following any semblance of a rational chain of thought, in your "debate arguments," I will just leave you to your nonsense talk.

 

You claimed that Dobbs bars federal regulation of abortion. I reviewed the majority decision and I don't see anything there that supports your claim. I asked you to post a pull quote that supports your claim, and it seems that you can't find anything to support your claim, either.

 

So, the whole, "State's rights" argument was bull crap lies from the beginning if Trump thinks that there should be a national deadline for abortion.
We all knew that argument was bull crap from day one.

If Roe had been left in place, the average abortion cut-off date would have been under 21 weeks - THAT POINT where a fetus might become viable outside the womb. So we could have basically AVOIDED all the bull crap from the right and just left Roe in place and had that "middle ground" anyway.

God's, what a cluster **** from the right, once again.

 

As it is common knowledge, that the Dobbs decision, in most basic terms, leaves all abortion regulation to the States, because the Federal government has no authority over the matter-- it is, rather, YOU, who would need cite where, in the Constitution, you see the granting to the Federal government the authority you are claiming that they do possess: for both protecting abortion for, and limiting it to, 15 weeks-- but NOT for preventing states from limiting it to any earlier than the point of "viability." That is a pretty fine needle, you are trying to thread.

If that had been the case, the obvious solution would have been for the Court, in Dobbs, to have set such a limit-- either at the point of viability, or perhaps at some other point, related to the 15 week limit, which the Court had been appraising, in that decision.






INCIDENTAL:

And I had said, that they reversed the interpretation of the Constitution, which our legal system had up until recently, been using (based on prior SCOTUS rulings)--
your skimpy quote, from my post:

The Court has changed our legal system's Constitutional interpretation...

If there is any difference, of any significance, between my own phrasing and your purported "correction," you will need explain that, to all of us (because right now, it would exist nowhere but in your imagination).

 

Is that what he is calling for? I don't think the GOP majority supports that. Trump is simply telling the GOP that they need to reach across to the other side and negotiate a sensible deal.

Well, until you backup your claim, it's actually your claim that is suspect.

Roe was a farce, built on a lie. The majority would have been liars if they affirmed it.

Oh, so suddenly now the Left supports a 21 week cut off? The Rank and File Left does, but I can't find many with national power that do. List 10 national Democrat office holders who support limiting abortion to 21 weeks.

But, if the Left is ready for such sensible limits, Trump's point is proven, because they sure as hell weren't ok with limits at 21 weeks before Dobbs!

And what an amazing turn in the polls since The Trumpster reached out to the middle and urged the GOP to make a deal.

It was about 9/15 when the Trumpster told the GOP to quit being so extreme and to reread the Art of the Deal. There was a Deal to made on Abortion that would satisfy two/thirds of the nation. This excited me, because I, and everyone else with a brain and basic common sense, had seen that for decades.

And, not coincidentally, it's also right around the time that The Trumpster took the lead in the polls.

 

So you are finally admitting that nothing in the Majority Decision of Dobbs states that the Federal Government has no role in abortion. That only took you how many posts to admit?

Fake news. I'm under no such obligation as I do not support Federal Abortion legislation. I'm fine with the States regulating it.

Fake News. I simply said that Trump is right, that there is a deal to be had that would satisfy 2/3rds of the voters and that sweet spot is likely somewhere between 13 and 20 weeks or so.

They are judges, not legislators, they simply pointed out the obvious truth of the lie Roe was built on, the Due Process Clause of the 14A has absolutely nothing to do with abortion and sent it back to the lower court.

 

No, your contorted phrasing, is not at all what I had said. Nor have I changed my position, one iota, from the start-- which you would know, if you had been able to comprehend the English, of my original post. This is my most recent phrasing, which you are interpreting as an "admission," that nothing in Dobbs, precludes the Federal govt. from regulating the legality of abortion. FYI-- my words say exactly the opposite, of what you read them as saying. But here they are, for our fellow PF members to decide, for themselves:


DEFinning said: ↑
...As it is common knowledge, that the Dobbs decision, in most basic terms, leaves all abortion regulation to the States...
<End of Zorro's Quoting of My Post>


If you, for some reason, cannot comprehend that,
if ALL abortion regulation is left to the states,
then NO regulation authority, remains for the Federal government--
then your misunderstanding of this simplest of concepts, is only proof of your inability to carry on an intelligible conversation, at least, at present.

I suggest that you investigate, with qualified medical personnel, my original, health-related concern, for your information processing capacity.

 

Are you now claimed that you never said that Dobbs forbids federal regulation of abortion, when it clearly does not?

You are trying to presume your point. You can't get to "then" until you establish "if" and you haven't established "if". You keep muttering about Dobbs, but I read through Dobbs and I don't see support your claim there. So I asked you for a pull quote from Dobbs that supports your claim, and several posts later, no pull quote.

On the contrary, my friends tell me that my counter-arguments to you have been brilliant. I wouldn't go that far.

Yeah, that's not strengthening your claim that Dobbs bars federal regulation of abortion, when it does no such thing and never even discusses the issue. In short, either you made it up, or you heard it from someone else that made it up, and now for some reason known only to you, you will not admit that you claim has collapsed like the seat cushions during the filming of The View after those big old ladies take a load off.

 

Trump's limp-wristed suppression of reproductive freedom is not without historical precedent in the United States.

There were also advocates for State control in the matter of slavery, although personal liberty eventually triumphed in that Constitutional contretemps.

The notion that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person in backward states and only has the potential of becoming one in more advanced states is very odd.

 

It's spineless, but the sexual abuser was never mistaken for a paradigm of moral rectitude.

 

The only points to abortion that need be made is it's up to each person and their doctors.

No politicians need to dictate what a woman can or can do in regards to their healthcare.

 

"Give me my freedom to make personal decisions!" is nothing new.

Neither is the sexual abuser pushing the "states' rights" pretense that provoked the self-styled Confederacy to reject the U.S. Constitution and attack the United States.

 

Spot on post!

 

Lmao, you really think you have that freedom to make your own decisions

Now that was hilarious.. I doubt there are many free thinkers left in this country that can even make a personal choice.. SURE, they believe they made a personal choice and that's how propaganda work

Need proof, if a person thinks any politician is more or less better than the next, they are absolutely brainwashed..

 

I suggest until this is straightened out that libs stop using abortion as their GO TO method of birth control. They make this amazing invention that prevents pregnancy, I think its called a CONDOM

 

We don't.

 

So, his new excuse, with his "announcement" was basically just to say that he'd already established the "middle ground" and that everything was fine now and everyone is happy with the choice. I can't tell if he's just that dumb or if he's smart enough to know that he can no longer say anything about this topic without getting raked over the coals by both sides. He'd really, really prefer that no one talk about this anymore.

 

Anyone that buys his B/S, gets what they deserve.

 

It would be wonderful if all politicians talked about what they REALLY think rather than what they think the voting public REALLY wants to hear. It would save a lot of time and effort and their flip flopping would be stopped.

I don't honestly think that Trump cares at all about abortion. But he realized he needed the evangelicals and so he proudly put an end to RvW with his SCOTUS picks. Now that he sees anti abortion as a loser he has capitulated. And if no one can see that they are willfully ignorant.

 

Trump's moral compass:

​

The sexual abuser really stepped in deep doo doo when he calculated that the same position that had been tried to perpetuate slavery, the moral supremacy of states over the rights of individuals, should control wombs.

Arizona quickly accommodated him by demonstrating what that means in practice - a devolution in personal liberty that condemns women in retrograde states to the status they would be accorded in Nicaragua or Iraq.

Horrific timing for the multiple indictee.​