The Supreme Court of Denial

[EaterOfUterus]

In America, we are governed by a notorious group of people. We have presidents, VPs, senators, representatives, but that is not the point. The point is that we, for the judicial branch, have federal and district courts of law, municipal courts at the city level, but at the federal level we have that group of nine old men and women who think they know what's best for the other 299,999,991 of us. But do they really? Are they really qualified to make or pass judgment on behalf of hundreds of millions of others? To answer this we must look at some basic facts.

In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court legalized abortion. Now who is to say that this decision could not be overturned? Is the Supreme Court really on the moral high ground here? Or have they taken the path of least resistance? It would seem to me that the Supreme Court has lost all credibility, is held accountable to no one, and thus make decisions that could cause strenuous relations and uproar within a community (or a nation), and never have to answer a question. At the rising tide of public opinion they can simply reject past notions or rulings and totally disregard stare decisis and any respect of past rulings.

So now what do I have to support this argument?

in 1857 there was a little case called Dred Scott v. Sanford. Now to go through the case would obviously be a waste of my time as most of you already know more than I do about it anyway, as it is one of the most well known Supreme Court cases ever. But in effect, it ruled that slaves were chattel and had no right to challenge their owners in a court of law as they were not citizens. And now I quote from Wikipedia.

Dred Scott was indirectly overruled in the Slaughter-house cases, which noted that Dred Scott's holding was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which guaranteed full rights and citizenship regardless of race.

Oh so it was overruled, you say? So they have lost all credibility.

Next we have an equally well known case from 1896 called Plessy v. Ferguson. This established the doctrine of separate but equal, but there is really no point in going into specifics. Many of you are already familiar with this case. But once again I quote from Wiki.

"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its final repudiation in the later Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Oh so this was overturned too? Apparently so by the 1954 case Brown v Board…

So what is my point? The point is that the Supreme Court has no credibility anymore. Their racism is startlingly clear and cannot be denied. They did not change their minds, but rather under pressure by the government, that is, we the people, they had to overrule past decisions. It is not to say that they are any less racist, just simply that a majority of Americans had woken up to the truth of multiculturalist society and had become more tolerant, accepting, and open minded, and had pressured the judicial to wake up, too.

So what do I propose? I propose a compromise.

Let us put away our notion of justice in a so-called "free" society and rather consider the other side.

Do you follow the Supreme Court of 1857, which is just as legitimate as the one we have today, or do you support the revised Court of today, the Court of Denial?

Remember that before blacks were recognized as citizens and human beings in society they were labeled chattel whose human natural rights were subject to the every whim of their master, kind of like fetuses (hmpf human beings hmpf) are today. So to think that abortion and racist administration do not go hand in hand is an error in judgment.

The way I see it we have two options. And I will have a poll to see what you all think.

Should we follow the rule set down by earlier courts and say that the Supreme Court can be influenced by the government and then follow through with it and criminalize abortion? Or however, should we reveal the later courts as frauds and announce once again that blacks are property and nothing more?

You be the judge.

[mph4ever]

i saw this on fox earlier

[EaterOfUterus]

i saw this on fox earlier

That is impossible. I came up with all of this on my own. I don't even have the channel.

[mph4ever]

That is impossible. I came up with all of this on my own. I don't even have the channel.

didn't you know, your source is more than likely syndicated, if you're in america, that is

[EaterOfUterus]

didn't you know, your source is more than likely syndicated, if you're in america, that is

My source? I came up with all of this off the top of my head. I don't steal material from anyone.

[Otherside]

wait we put black people above masses of cellular tissue?!?!!




THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!

[EaterOfUterus]

wait we put black people above masses of cellular tissue?!?!!

masses of cellular tissue of white people no less

[Reaganista]

brown v board was not the court reacting to social pressure there was no pressure for desegregration in 1954 it wasnt until the early 60s that they started forcibly desegregating schools at gunpoint
also the whole argument is ridiculous because all of the circumstances in two decisions 60 years apart are different including all the people on the court
and you undermine your own argument when you call the court unaccountable and then in the next paragraph point out that they were held to account by the 13th and 14th amendments

[Reaganista]

also in like 25 years as chief council for the ncaap thurgood marshall won 29 out of 32 cases at the supreme court to say that the court wasnt the leading government institution involved in the civil rights movement is ridiculous

[EaterOfUterus]

Where did I say that?

I remember saying that the Supreme Court was racist but that's about it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

So what is my point?
Good question.

[EaterOfUterus]

Good question.

Wow a member of 7 years but can't come up with a legitimate response. Hmm, something is wrong with this picture.

[Permanent Solution]

The point is that the Supreme Court has no credibility anymore. Their racism is startlingly clear and cannot be denied.
Wait you wrote this in present tense I don't understand are you implying the supreme court is still full of racists? I don't think any current justices were on the supreme court for any of these cases you listed (I may be wrong) and even if they were, these were the cases that overturned racism.

Your article is really ridicuous.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It is a legitimate response; your entire theory is whacked-out.

You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court makes rulings based on what its members happen to be feeling at the time, when the reality is far more complex. The SC judges are motivated by personal convictions, but their rulings need to be justified within the context of the constitution, which provides some leeway- but not a lot- in how they can interpret the legality of legislation.

And you somehow arrive at the conclusion that the current Supreme Court is racist based on a decision made by a bunch of 19th century judges. Which is probably the most ridiculous argument you could put forward at this moment.

[EaterOfUterus]

It is a legitimate response; your entire theory is whacked-out.

You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court makes rulings based on what its members happen to be feeling at the time, when the reality is far more complex. The SC judges are motivated by personal convictions, but their rulings need to be justified within the context of the constitution, which provides some leeway- but not a lot- in how they can interpret the legality of legislation.

And you somehow arrive at the conclusion that the current Supreme Court is racist based on a decision made by a bunch of 19th century judges. Which is probably the most ridiculous argument you could put forward at this moment.

Well do you prefer stare decisis and support the slavery of the minority population or do you support overturning such decisions and criminalizing abortion? You can't have it both ways, otherwise you're a flipflopper, like most liberals are.

[Dave de Sylvia]

"Stare decisis"?

[Reaganista]

stare decisis doesnt apply to dred scott you assbag they changed the constitution

Where did I say that?

I remember saying that the Supreme Court was racist but that's about it.i was pointing out how youre wrong

[EaterOfUterus]

"Stare decisis"?

Literally means "to stand by things decided"

So you can stand by original rulings and admit that blacks are not citizens or you can admit the Supreme Court has no credibility and vote to overturn its rulings and now say that abortion must be illegal.

[EaterOfUterus]

stare decisis doesnt apply to dred scott you assbag they changed the constitution

i was pointing out how youre wrong

Then the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And we need a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

[Reaganista]

i vote to reject retarded false dichotomies

Then the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
how

[Permanent Solution]

People who stick to one point absolutely are worse than flip floppers. Inflexibility is inefficient and wasteful.

If someone believes that the constitution is infallible, they believe black people are only 2/3 of a person. If someone believes the constitution is garbage, they refute the values of freedom of religion, speech, and so forth.

As in most cases, the most reasonable stance is to be moderate, or, as ts terms it, a flip-flopper.

[EaterOfUterus]

Wait you wrote this in present tense I don't understand are you implying the supreme court is still full of racists? I don't think any current justices were on the supreme court for any of these cases you listed (I may be wrong) and even if they were, these were the cases that overturned racism.

Your article is really ridicuous.

Well according to stare decisis they must be racists. Even though that was not at all what I was saying.

[Reaganista]

stare decisis isnt even binding this is really a juvenile "argument"
Then the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And we need a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.why

[Dave de Sylvia]

Literally means "to stand by things decided"

So you can stand by original rulings and admit that blacks are not citizens or you can admit the Supreme Court has no credibility and vote to overturn its rulings and now say that abortion must be illegal.
Oh, OK.

The Supreme Court has the power to overturn decisions that don't stand up to logical scrutiny. The 13th Amendment wasn't strictly necessary, because the Constitution as interpreted by sane people would never condone slavery, but it was required bring the legal code up to speed with basic decency.

[Permanent Solution]

Well according to stare decisis they must be racists. Even though that was not at all what I was saying.

you'll have to explain this concept to me because if some dude is racist and then i take over his position i am not racist.

[EaterOfUterus]

stare decisis isnt even binding this is really a juvenile "argument"
why

I realize this. The point is they ought to respect earlier decisions and if not they have lost all credibility and must overturn Roe. That is the idea behind stare decisis: so that the courts won't be revealed for the frauds they are.

you'll have to explain this concept to me because if some dude is racist and then i take over his position i am not racist.

Stare decisis mean to stand by things decided, the rulings of earlier courts were certainly examples of racists legislating from the bench; therefore, the current Justices are bound, perhaps not legally, but ethically to respect the earlier rulings of the Court, thereby aligning with racist decisions and becoming racists themselves (maybe not in theory but in practice)

Oh, OK.

The Supreme Court has the power to overturn decisions that don't stand up to logical scrutiny. The 13th Amendment wasn't strictly necessary, because the Constitution as interpreted by sane people would never condone slavery, but it was required bring the legal code up to speed with basic decency.

Then the Supreme Court loses all credibility and therefore must overturn the Roe decision as we can not be completely sure that they were in their right minds in that decision. It is better to err on the side of caution…

[Reaganista]

I realize this. The point is they ought to respect earlier decisions and if not they have lost all credibility and must overturn Roe.

no that's actually a false dichotomy
sure it is within their power to overturn roe at any moment
but they choose not to
That is the idea behind stare decisis: so that the courts won't be revealed for the frauds they are.

no the point is that as long as their opinion hasn't changed there's no need to keep restating it
and to keep lower courts in line but that doesnt apply here

[Dave de Sylvia]

Then the Supreme Court loses all credibility and therefore must overturn the Roe decision as we can not be completely sure that they were in their right minds at the end. It is better to err on the side of caution…
This isn't a logical progression. I said that the courts are capable of being wrong- you've extended it to say that the courts are always wrong. Roe vs Wade should be evaluated on the strength of the arguments presented and nothing else.

[EaterOfUterus]

This isn't a logical progression. I said that the courts are capable of being wrong- you've extended it to say that the courts are always wrong. Roe vs Wade should be evaluated on the strength of the arguments presented and nothing else.

You want to know why Roe is unconstitutional?

[Permanent Solution]

Stare decisis mean to stand by things decided, the rulings of earlier courts were certainly examples of racists legislating from the bench; therefore, the current Justices are bound, perhaps not legally, but ethically to respect the earlier rulings of the Court, thereby aligning with racist decisions and becoming racists themselves (maybe not in theory but in practice)


If I read that right you just said the ethical thing to do was to promote racism in the courts. You've got to be a troll.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You want to know why Roe is unconstitutional?
No, it's not relevant to your argument. You need to explain to me why Stare Decisis can alone overturn Roe V Wade.

[EaterOfUterus]

If I read that right you just said the ethical thing to do was to promote racism in the courts. You've got to be a troll.

Hardly. I said that they are ethically bound to respect earlier rulings and thereby take on racist doctrine. It is not ethical to be racist, it is ethical to respect the earlier ruling of the Court.

[Permanent Solution]

Hardly. I said that they are ethically bound to respect earlier rulings and thereby take on racist doctrine. It is not ethical to be racist, it is ethical to respect the earlier ruling of the Court.

so you reworded what I said, good job.

[Reaganista]

Hardly. I said that they are ethically bound to take on racist doctrine.
yep

[EaterOfUterus]

so you reworded what I said, good job.

So then you would support standing by earlier rulings and say that blacks are chattel and babies should be aborted?

Or do you think blacks have rights like we do and that the fetus has as much of a right to life as we do?

[Permanent Solution]

So then you would support standing by earlier rulings and say that blacks are chattel and babies should be aborted?

Or do you think blacks have rights like we do and that the fetus has as much of a right to life as we do?

I think that blacks are human beings and I think that that view does not mean I support overturning Roe v. Wade, and believing such things makes me a reasonable person, not a flip flopper.

[EaterOfUterus]

I think that blacks are human beings and I think that that view does not mean I support overturning Roe v. Wade, and believing such things makes me a reasonable person, not a flip flopper.

So you believe in overturning decisions but allowing others to stand based on what you feel, rather than according to the law? You would make a horrible judge. We must recognize that if we are to stand by earlier rulings we must therefore acknowledge blacks are chattel, but if we are to recognize that an overturned decision (anti-stare decisis) is a natural progression that inevitably leads to a more sophisticated, tolerant, accepting (what have you) nation then we must give the humans-yet-born the benefit of the doubt like we did the blacks and in the spirit of liberalism we must abolish abortion. That is not to say that blacks are human beings, but rather to say that we ought to give humans-yet-born the benefit of the doubt.

Being a justice is not about what you think, it's about what you know

[Dave de Sylvia]

This isn't a hugely advanced concept; I don't understand why you find it so hard to grasp. Court decisions have to stand up to logical scrutiny: if they don't, they're repealed; if they do, they're upheld. Legal precedents are constantly being challenged and re-evaluated.

[EaterOfUterus]

This isn't a hugely advanced concept; I don't understand why you find it so hard to grasp. Court decisions have to stand up to logical scrutiny: if they don't, they're repealed; if they do, they're upheld. Legal precedents are constantly being challenged and re-evaluated.

I totally understand it and I feel that blacks are entitled to their dignity, but because I am a proponent of overturning decisions which do not stand up to logical scrutiny we must end abortion now.

[Dave de Sylvia]

So argue against Roe vs. Wade on its own terms. This sophistic argument based on upholding precedent is not going to help you.

[EaterOfUterus]

So argue against Roe vs. Wade on its own terms. This sophistic argument based on upholding precedent is not going to help you.

You must recognize that you can either overturn precedent, or accept precedent. So in one case you say blacks are chattel and babies should be killed, the other case blacks are human beings and babies should have their right to life.

See I have attached the two together because they both involve human life and they are a question of dignity and humanity. In essence what I am saying is it is illogical to have your cake and eat it too (eg you can't have it both ways, either the rights of both parties are respected and granted, or they are both neglected and rejected).

[Dave de Sylvia]

You must recognize that you can either overturn precedent, or accept precedent.
You can uphold one precedent and overturn another.

See I have attached the two together because they both involve human life and they are a question of dignity and humanity.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes the vaguely related, but different.

[BridgeToSolace]

I totally understand it and I feel that blacks are entitled to their dignity, but because I am a proponent of overturning decisions which do not stand up to logical scrutiny we must end abortion now.

Your argument is contingent on this point.

But this point is not universal.

Defend it or shush, plz.

[EaterOfUterus]

We must recognize that one ruling revokes the human right to life and that in effect gives those against it the right to exterminate life whereas the other allows life but makes severe restrictions and sanctions on natural rights and freedom.

I would rather see the blacks back in slavery than see millions of children (black or white) exterminated on a yearly basis. At least slavery allows them to live and abortion doesn't even do that much.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's not an either/or decision. It's bizarre that you would insist on linking them like this.

We must recognize that one ruling revokes the human right to life and that in effect gives those against it the right to exterminate life whereas the other allows life but makes severe restrictions and sanctions on natural rights and freedom.
They're two completely different concepts that deserve to be evaluated independently.

[EaterOfUterus]

It's not an either/or decision. It's bizarre that you would insist on linking them like this.


They're two completely different concepts that deserve to be evaluated independently.

The overall theme is, "What value is found in life?" Is it something we can so casually do away with (abortion) at the drop of a hat, or is it something that ought to be allowed but only on the basis that it provides some direct benefit to White America.

Or we can propose a new system altogether. We could allow children to be born but then we can put them into slavery after they become adults.

(Oh wait, we already do that now)

[Dave de Sylvia]

The overall theme is, "What value is found in life?" Is it something we can so casually do away with (abortion) at the drop of a hat, or is it something that ought to be allowed but only on the basis that it provides some direct benefit to White America.
Or neither....

[EaterOfUterus]

Or neither....

Well it seems to me that either you support stare decisis and choose the latter, or are against stare decisis and choose the former.

[McP3000]

Stop using the term "stare decisis" you troll

[Reaganista]

the argument that all precedent should overturned is self contradictory and ridiculous

[EaterOfUterus]

the argument that all precedent should overturned is self contradictory and ridiculous

Well they have lost all credibility and we must overturn Roe on principle.

Stop using the term "stare decisis" you troll

I am sorry do you have a suggestion on any better terms to use?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well it seems to me that either you support stare decisis and choose the latter, or are against stare decisis and choose the former.
It seems to you wrong. Stare decisis is not an altrustic doctrine. Decisions can be overturned if they are found to be flawed. If they are not flawed, there is no reason to overturn them.

[Reaganista]

if we overturn all precedents there's two ways to go about it i figure

invalidate them all at the same time, in which cases all the invalidations become precedent which then has tobe invalidated which would lead to just about everything being both legal and illegal at the same time

or we could go along hearing one case at a time like normal but just decide against precedent every time so abortions would come and go every time the court heard a case on it

i dont think either one would really even serve your purposes

[EaterOfUterus]

It seems to you wrong. Stare decisis is not an altrustic doctrine. Decisions can be overturned if they are found to be flawed. If they are not flawed, there is no reason to overturn them.

Roe v. Wade is flawed fundamentally and must be overturned. You have to be a nitwit to argue with me on this after the thread I just posted.

[guitrguy]

well the thread you post fails to define life other than leave it ridiculously vague

[Reaganista]

the other thread he posted used the declaration of independence to make a "scientific" argument against a medical procedure

[Dave de Sylvia]

Roe v. Wade is flawed fundamentally and must be overturned. You have to be a nitwit to argue with me on this after the thread I just posted.
You haven't provided an argument against Roe v Wade. You have just prattled on about slavery for no apparent reason.

[EaterOfUterus]

if we overturn all precedents there's two ways to go about it i figure

invalidate them all at the same time, in which cases all the invalidations become precedent which then has tobe invalidated which would lead to just about everything being both legal and illegal at the same time

or we could go along hearing one case at a time like normal but just decide against precedent every time so abortions would come and go every time the court heard a case on it

i dont think either one would really even serve your purposes

I know you are trying to be sarcastic or humorous but your wise guy attitude won't cut it with me. Precedent is the initial decision. It does not stand to reason that there could be a precedent on negating precedent. The precedent is absolute and is not reflexive based on the decision. The decision to negate precedent may be a precedent in and of itself but the precedent is the initial ruling. The precedent can never change to the future ruling which negates the earlier one. It literally "precedes" and the thought is that one case precedes another where the preceding case is overturned by the following case.

Precedents never change.

[EaterOfUterus]

You haven't provided an argument against Roe v Wade. You have just prattled on about slavery for no apparent reason.

Look would you rather have the blacks enslaved so you can have your precious little abortion? This poll is not optional. You must give me a reasoned response for your answer.

[guitrguy]

how is that even relevant to abortion?

[GUTS]

abortion = slavery

[Reaganista]

I know you are trying to be sarcastic or humorous but your wise guy attitude won't cut it with me. Precedent is the initial decision. It does not stand to reason that there could be a precedent on negating precedent. The precedent is absolute and is not reflexive based on the decision. The decision to negate precedent may be a precedent in and of itself but the precedent is the initial ruling. The precedent can never change to the future ruling which negates the earlier one. It literally "precedes" and the thought is that one case precedes another where the preceding case is overturned by the following case.

Precedents never change.

ok that's a cute equivocation but yeah they do change every time a precedent is overruled it becomes invalid
also everytime an issue is reread and decided in favor of existing precedent the new decision is precedent

anyway that's irrelevant to my previous point because even by your definition the decision to negate roe v. wade represents a new decision to endorse abortion and would therefore be "absolute and is not reflexive based on the decision" whatever the **** you think that means

[EaterOfUterus]

how is that even relevant to abortion?

Why don't you just vote in the poll, then we'll find out if you're racist and hate human life too.

[McP3000]

you're hilariously stupid

[guitrguy]

Why don't you just vote in the poll, then we'll find out if you're racist and hate human life too.

why why would I vote in a poll with a retarded premise? You linking slavery to abortion makes absolutely no sense.

[GUTS]

everyone is racist. everyone hates. these, are facts. to be racist is to be human. to hate is to be human. to love is to be human. the only person capable of being completely non-racist would have to be god.

[McP3000]

why why would I vote in a poll with a retarded premise? You linking slavery to abortion makes absolutely no sense.

well you have to nov 7 anyway why not practice

[EaterOfUterus]

ok that's a cute equivocation but yeah they do change every time a precedent is overruled it becomes invalid
also everytime an issue is reread and decided in favor of existing precedent the new decision is precedent

anyway that's irrelevant to my previous point because even by your definition the decision to negate roe v. wade represents a new decision to endorse abortion and would therefore be "absolute and is not reflexive based on the decision" whatever the **** you think that means

Well what I was referring to was the reflexive property of mathematics and basically suggesting that a precedent to negate precedent is not reflexively precedent (it is not precedent per se)

[guitrguy]

everyone is racist. everyone hates. these, are facts. to be racist is to be human. to hate is to be human. to love is to be human. the only person capable of being completely non-racist would have to be god.

what? not everyone hates specific races.

[Reaganista]

uh also someone who wasnt indoctrinated from birth to be racist prolly wouldnt idk

[guitrguy]

well you have to nov 7 anyway why not practice

i actually don't have to on nov. 7

[McP3000]

what? not everyone hates specific races.
yeah, even the most "tolerant" or "open-minded" people still stereotype in indirect ways.

I would also like to quote the song "Everyone's just a little bit racist"
i actually don't have to on nov. 7
eh, good point

[GUTS]

what? not everyone hates specific races.

hate isnot a prerequisite[sp?] for racism. racism is acknowleging that people of different races are different. would you agree that black people are different then white people, even if its in a subtile way? physical features, culture.

the media gives racism a bad connotation. same as sexism. acknowledging that there are difference between the sexes is not a bad thing is it

[EaterOfUterus]

hate isnot a prerequisite[sp?] for racism. racism is acknowleging that people of different races are different. would you agree that black people are different then white people, even if its in a subtile way? physical features, culture.

the media gives racism a bad connotation. same as sexism. acknowledging that there are difference between the sexes is not a bad thing is it

Well I think blacks are better at football so I guess that makes me a supremacist then.

[guitrguy]

hate isnot a prerequisite[sp?] for racism. racism is acknowleging that people of different races are different. would you agree that black people are different then white people, even if its in a subtile way? physical features, culture.

the media gives racism a bad connotation. same as sexism. acknowledging that there are difference between the sexes is not a bad thing is it

racism is actually the belief your race is superior to others, sexism is the belief your gender is superior to the opposite. acknowledging a difference is neither racist nor sexist.

[GUTS]

they are better at football simple statistics. White people are better at eating cheese. again, just because we acknowledge a difference between races, doesnt mean that its bad. and it also doesnt mean that stereotypes are right. it just means that EVERYONE is different.

[EaterOfUterus]

White people are better at eating cheese.

What the hell are you on?

[GUTS]

racism is actually the belief your race is superior to others, sexism is the belief your gender is superior to the opposite. acknowledging a difference is neither racist nor sexist.

meh, i think thats more of a media/popular definition for the term. i'd call that [insert race here] supremecy, or male/female supremecy.

people yell racism to get money from a statment that is not inflamitory all the time. that doesnt make the speaker of that statment believe that he or she is better then the other.

i think that this a racist statment:

Black people are more likely to end up in jail then asians.

I also think this is a racist statement:

Black people are more likely to lead happy lives then asians.

im niether black or asian.

[Reaganista]

facts cant be racist

[guitrguy]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

[GUTS]

behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

i agree with that ^ but i dont believe all stereotypes to be of a discriminating or negative nature.


That having been said, im gonna go get drunk :wave:


im irish. and i drink all the time. im racist. i propagate a stereopyte that is true.








Why is a White comedian talking about black people negativly "racist" and a Black comedian making fun of white people "funny"

[EaterOfUterus]

Hey men really are smarter than women.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html

And hey whites really are smarter than blacks!

[Dave de Sylvia]

Look would you rather have the blacks enslaved so you can have your precious little abortion? This poll is not optional. You must give me a reasoned response for your answer.
Um I don't support abortion.

You need to use logic in your arguments now.

[EaterOfUterus]

Um I don't support abortion.


But do you think it should be legal?

[Reaganista]

Why is a White comedian talking about black people negativly "racist" and a Black comedian making fun of white people "funny"
apparently because you just declared it to be

[EaterOfUterus]

apparently because you just declared it to be

No it's true. I would say what I think here but I would probably get banned if I said what I really think.

[Reaganista]

except it's not really true

[Smokey D]

The Supreme Court isn't bound by stare decisis. Precedent only binds lower courts. It only persuades the court who made it. Any court can reverse a decision made at its own level.

[GreyHam]

i still fail to see how the emancipation of blacks and abortion are linked