Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Anybody noticed ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    This is pointless.

    Just ignore it. You are arguing something I am not.

    You have to be right, so be it.
    As I have said, to the extent you are argue MORAL and ETHICAL viewpoints (what you believe the law SHOULD be), I do not fundamentally disagree with you, and even where we do disagree (like whether inalienable rights attach at conception or some other point in the development) I nonetheless respect your views as validly defensible ones.

    That is very different from what you have actually been arguing, which is what the Constitution means and says about these things, and the appropriate role of judges. It is simply, demonstrably, incorrect to claim that the contemporaneous society took for granted that the terms "persons" and/or "citizens" included the unborn, or that the unborn have ever been viewed by the law as having inherent inalienable rights equal to the born. This is not even a close call, every bit of contemporaneous indicator of legal and societal customs show that the unborn were not viewed as citizens or persons akin to the born (not counted in the census, the killing of not considered murder, etc., etc.). We both agree that Roe was wrongly decided, you are just incorrect in your understanding of what the actual affirmative holding of Roe was, and therefore WHY (as a matter of law, rather than morality) it was wrongly decided.

    The role of a judge is to apply the law as written and understood by the society which promulgated it, not to substitute their own (or someone else's) moral or ethical view over what the law SHOULD be. It is even more disturbing for a self-purported conservative to expect the judiciary to make the very sort of activist rulings that liberals routinely applaud (just ones that you like as a matter of policy). It is also important when discussion the law to be precise. Roe did not directly deny the unborn 14th amendment protection...they never had it as a matter of law (again, this is absolutely clear as the understanding of the founding generation), what it DID do is to erroneously declare that abortion was a protected right, and deny the states their legitimate power to proscribe abortion (or even if they choose, to extend rights to the unborn).

    Whether or not the 14th amendment as written and understood by society when it is enacted it includes the unborn as "persons" or "citizens" is a question of law which lawyers are trained to answer (and the correct answer for all the reasons mentioned before is clearly NO, it does not). Whether or not the unborn SHOULD be treated as "persons" or "citizens" under the law is a moral and ethical question which is left by the Constitution to the people to decide state by state, and as such is NOT something that courts (who are trained to answer questions of law) are not suited or appropriate to decide.

    Slavery was immoral and wrong, but it was, clearly, unambiguously constitutional -- and still is technically as punishment for a crime subject to due process -- (and unlike the unborn which were not counted at all, slaves actually WERE partially counted for the census). It would have been wrong for the courts to simply decide it was "unconstitutional", just as it was wrong in Dred Scott for the court to declare that there was an inherent property right under the 14th Amendment that prohibited banning of slavery in the territories. Many people believe the death penalty is wrong, but it is clearly, unambiguously constitutional, and it was (and still would be) wrong for the courts to decide it is unconstitutional.

    If you believe that courts should be arbiters of moral and ethical fairness or justness, than we shouldn't have lawyers appointed to the bench. If, on the other hand you believe (as any genuine Conservative should) that courts are there to apply the law as written and understood by the society that enacted it, that is lawyer's work.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

      As I have said, to the extent you are argue MORAL and ETHICAL viewpoints (what you believe the law SHOULD be), I do not fundamentally disagree with you, and even where we do disagree (like whether inalienable rights attach at conception or some other point in the development) I nonetheless respect your views as validly defensible ones.

      That is very different from what you have actually been arguing, which is what the Constitution means and says about these things, and the appropriate role of judges. It is simply, demonstrably, incorrect to claim that the contemporaneous society took for granted that the terms "persons" and/or "citizens" included the unborn, or that the unborn have ever been viewed by the law as having inherent inalienable rights equal to the born. This is not even a close call, every bit of contemporaneous indicator of legal and societal customs show that the unborn were not viewed as citizens or persons akin to the born (not counted in the census, the killing of not considered murder, etc., etc.). We both agree that Roe was wrongly decided, you are just incorrect in your understanding of what the actual affirmative holding of Roe was, and therefore WHY (as a matter of law, rather than morality) it was wrongly decided.

      The role of a judge is to apply the law as written and understood by the society which promulgated it, not to substitute their own (or someone else's) moral or ethical view over what the law SHOULD be. It is even more disturbing for a self-purported conservative to expect the judiciary to make the very sort of activist rulings that liberals routinely applaud (just ones that you like as a matter of policy). It is also important when discussion the law to be precise. Roe did not directly deny the unborn 14th amendment protection...they never had it as a matter of law (again, this is absolutely clear as the understanding of the founding generation), what it DID do is to erroneously declare that abortion was a protected right, and deny the states their legitimate power to proscribe abortion (or even if they choose, to extend rights to the unborn).

      Whether or not the 14th amendment as written and understood by society when it is enacted it includes the unborn as "persons" or "citizens" is a question of law which lawyers are trained to answer (and the correct answer for all the reasons mentioned before is clearly NO, it does not). Whether or not the unborn SHOULD be treated as "persons" or "citizens" under the law is a moral and ethical question which is left by the Constitution to the people to decide state by state, and as such is NOT something that courts (who are trained to answer questions of law) are not suited or appropriate to decide.

      Slavery was immoral and wrong, but it was, clearly, unambiguously constitutional -- and still is technically as punishment for a crime subject to due process -- (and unlike the unborn which were not counted at all, slaves actually WERE partially counted for the census). It would have been wrong for the courts to simply decide it was "unconstitutional", just as it was wrong in Dred Scott for the court to declare that there was an inherent property right under the 14th Amendment that prohibited banning of slavery in the territories. Many people believe the death penalty is wrong, but it is clearly, unambiguously constitutional, and it was (and still would be) wrong for the courts to decide it is unconstitutional.

      If you believe that courts should be arbiters of moral and ethical fairness or justness, than we shouldn't have lawyers appointed to the bench. If, on the other hand you believe (as any genuine Conservative should) that courts are there to apply the law as written and understood by the society that enacted it, that is lawyer's work.
      No, that is not what I have been intending.

      my argument is, an unborn child is both living and human. And “life” is a guarantee... except when it has been redefined as “not life” by a court.

      Last edited by DavidSF; 4 days ago.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

        You continue to make the same error as the courts, the 14th Amendment does not proscribe laws that would deny life, liberty, or property (otherwise by definition it would ban ALL laws, as every single law in existence denies someone liberty). It merely guarantees that those denials are pursuant to due process of law. In terms of the imposition of the laws it requires that they be put into law per the required constitutional manner (passed by the legislature, signed by the governor). In terms of enforcing the law, it requires only that there by a proper criminal or civil trial before sanctions can attach.

        The 14th Amendment no more guarantees access to abortion procedures (even to save the life or health of the mother) than the due process clause of the the 5th guarantees the right to use potentially life or health saving drugs for uses the FDA doesn't permit. The clauses are not guarantees of life, liberty or property, their are guarantees that denial of those things are subject to due process (in the manner the law is put into place, and how it is enforced).




        Substantive Due Process was always bullshit, including the incorporation doctrine. But the incorporation doctrine (the application of the bill of rights to the states), though accepted as precedent under stare decisis, ONLY applies to those restrictions on government action that are enumerated in the Bill of RIghts. The general right to privacy (another made up right) and the specific right to abortion are not to be found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

        Most legal scholars accept that Roe was wrongly decided (and even poorly reasoned), but argue that it should stand as binding precedent under the principle of stare decisis. But no legal scholar to my knowledge has ever argued that stare decisis is absolute (virtually every scholar who argues that Roe should stand despite being wrongly decided as a matter of precedent would not argue the same for other rulings which have overtuned precedents they disagreed with as a matter of policy...Brown v. Board of Education overturned a precendent, as have rulings with regard to homosexual conduct).

        ...
        Regarding the doctor, pregnant woman and court standing from the conservative viewpoint is this: The doctor and women would be prosecuted, likely convicted and sentenced despite a determination of serious risk to her life. That happens in state A. Further, both parties will only have recourse thru the courts of state A; the federal court system could not intervene. I understand your position and the likelihood SCOTUS will adopt most or all of it, even if I disagree with it.

        What I am asking is this: A case similar to this will be argued (my comment, "R v.W, part II") again, even if there will be cases of a Dr. and woman prosecuted/convicted within a state, and are given no standing in federal court. The case will be forced to the federal level in this fashion: The doctor will either travel with the pregnant woman, or will refer her to a Dr. from another state where elective abortion is legal up to 6 months (for example). State A decides to prosecute both the Dr. and her on conspiracy charges, since both made their intentions clear beforehand. If it crosses state lines, should this involve the federal courts?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          Regarding the doctor, pregnant woman and court standing from the conservative viewpoint is this: The doctor and women would be prosecuted, likely convicted and sentenced despite a determination of serious risk to her life. That happens in state A. Further, both parties will only have recourse thru the courts of state A; the federal court system could not intervene. I understand your position and the likelihood SCOTUS will adopt most or all of it, even if I disagree with it.
          Actually, I think if the doctor or the woman make a convincing case to a jury that the termination of the pregnancy was necessary to protect the physical well-being, it would clearly fall under the valid alternative defenses of defense of self or others (which does not require malevolent intent on the part of the party injured or killed to protect the life or safety of onesself or others, merely that the injured/hurt party represents an ongoing threat to health or safety) and I think in most instances juries would accept that alternative defense. It would, put the burden on the mother (and more so the Doctor, as the mother has an easier burden to demonstrate they relied on the Doctor's guidance) to establish a reasonable belief of the threat to the mother's physical well being.


          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          What I am asking is this: A case similar to this will be argued (my comment, "R v.W, part II") again, even if there will be cases of a Dr. and woman prosecuted/convicted within a state, and are given no standing in federal court. The case will be forced to the federal level in this fashion: The doctor will either travel with the pregnant woman, or will refer her to a Dr. from another state where elective abortion is legal up to 6 months (for example). State A decides to prosecute both the Dr. and her on conspiracy charges, since both made their intentions clear beforehand. If it crosses state lines, should this involve the federal courts?
          State's cannot charge "conspiracy" to not violate the law (going to another jurisdiction where something is legal is not a crime). The whole point of federalism is that different states may choose to have different laws, and the people may "vote" with their feet buy freely traveling between states accordingly. It is not a crime to cross state lines (and no state can make it a crime other than fleeing the jurisdiction, which they can only do if someone has been charged with committing a crime, or otherwise validly held).

          Now, there are a limited set of instances in which FEDERAL laws which can validly be established that can criminalize the taking of people across state lines, but these are generally limited to non-custodial adults who (without the affirmative consent of the child's legal guardian) take children across state lines to legally do something that would have been illegal without parental/custodial consent in the previous state (including abortion).

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • The angry screaming over abortion, gay "rights" and God knows what else, will heat up soon..

            Liberals addicted to outrage, always find SOMETHING to go ape*&%^ about.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will begin on Sept. 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced in a statement on Friday.

            Opening statements by committee members will take place on Sept. 4, and the questioning of Kavanaugh will start the following day, the committee statement said. The hearings are expected to last three or four days.

            ...

            Republican President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh, 53, on July 9 to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Before he can assume the lifetime job on the nine-member court, the Republican-controlled Senate must vote to confirm him.

            "He's a mainstream judge. He has a record of judicial independence and applying the law as it is written," Grassley said in a statement, noting that Kavanaugh has met with dozens of senators.

            "With the Senate already reviewing more documents than for any other Supreme Court nominee in history, Chairman Grassley has lived up to his promise to lead an open, transparent and fair process," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a separate statement.

            ...

            If the Republicans stick together, they can get Kavanaugh confirmed, but that could be a challenge, given the divisive issues swirling around the conservative nominee, including abortion, gay rights, healthcare and tariffs.

            Conservatives also hope to pressure some Democrats into voting for Kavanaugh, especially those who are up for re-election this year and come from states that voted for Trump in 2016, like Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. All three voted last year for Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.


            https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/br.../10/id/876555/

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              The angry screaming over abortion, gay "rights" and God knows what else, will heat up soon..

              Liberals addicted to outrage, always find SOMETHING to go ape*&%^ about.

              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will begin on Sept. 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced in a statement on Friday.

              Opening statements by committee members will take place on Sept. 4, and the questioning of Kavanaugh will start the following day, the committee statement said. The hearings are expected to last three or four days.

              ...

              Republican President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh, 53, on July 9 to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Before he can assume the lifetime job on the nine-member court, the Republican-controlled Senate must vote to confirm him.

              "He's a mainstream judge. He has a record of judicial independence and applying the law as it is written," Grassley said in a statement, noting that Kavanaugh has met with dozens of senators.

              "With the Senate already reviewing more documents than for any other Supreme Court nominee in history, Chairman Grassley has lived up to his promise to lead an open, transparent and fair process," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a separate statement.

              ...

              If the Republicans stick together, they can get Kavanaugh confirmed, but that could be a challenge, given the divisive issues swirling around the conservative nominee, including abortion, gay rights, healthcare and tariffs.

              Conservatives also hope to pressure some Democrats into voting for Kavanaugh, especially those who are up for re-election this year and come from states that voted for Trump in 2016, like Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. All three voted last year for Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.


              https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/br.../10/id/876555/
              Let the squealing like stuck pigs begin! The democrats are in something of a bind on this. In order to maintain enthusiasm with the base, they need to go all in, full-blown apocalyptic hysterical in opposition. The problem is that most of the country falls into the camp of not getting hysterical about qualified nominees, so this will be a turn off. Add to this that this will suck all the political oxygen up for a week or two post labor-day, when the campaign really starts to heat up is not the best thing for them come November.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Let the squealing like stuck pigs begin! The democrats are in something of a bind on this. In order to maintain enthusiasm with the base, they need to go all in, full-blown apocalyptic hysterical in opposition. The problem is that most of the country falls into the camp of not getting hysterical about qualified nominees, so this will be a turn off. Add to this that this will suck all the political oxygen up for a week or two post labor-day, when the campaign really starts to heat up is not the best thing for them come November.
                Dems need to go for the "undecided" vote to win, as usual. Their base isn't as important, a bit of drama for the press from a few of the usual players will take care of the required outrage and the "I did what I could" excuses. I don't think they'll need two weeks; a couple of days' drama by D's, who then need to get into campaign mode. Let a few lefty press outlets extend the outrage while the House members gear up the campaign.

                As for the abortion issue being a litmus test for the independent voter, it looks like a wash (about even, pro/against). Link:
                https://news.gallup.com/poll/170249/...-pro-life.aspx

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • I'm getting anxious to get on with it. I understand Kavanaugh needs to visit with the various congressmen, but September 4 seems to be a long way off (from when he was nominated).

                  I liked that Trump "jumped the gun" by nominating Kavanaugh before Kennedy had actually left ... but now I feel we're letting the moss grow under our feet a bit.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Dems need to go for the "undecided" vote to win, as usual. Their base isn't as important, a bit of drama for the press from a few of the usual players will take care of the required outrage and the "I did what I could" excuses. I don't think they'll need two weeks; a couple of days' drama by D's, who then need to get into campaign mode. Let a few lefty press outlets extend the outrage while the House members gear up the campaign.

                    As for the abortion issue being a litmus test for the independent voter, it looks like a wash (about even, pro/against). Link:
                    https://news.gallup.com/poll/170249/...-pro-life.aspx
                    The base is the most important thing in any election these days, the challenge for both parties is to reach out to the "center" or "swing" voters without alienating their own base into not turning out.

                    Take 1998, for example, the narrative on the GOP loses in the the mid-terms was that they "overreached" with impeachment. But it was actually as much that they pissed off their base with their omnibus highway bill in late October of that year (a bill which was at the time the single largest spending bill in history), so much that the base did not turn out at levels it had in prior elections.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                      I'm getting anxious to get on with it. I understand Kavanaugh needs to visit with the various congressmen, but September 4 seems to be a long way off (from when he was nominated).

                      I liked that Trump "jumped the gun" by nominating Kavanaugh before Kennedy had actually left ... but now I feel we're letting the moss grow under our feet a bit.
                      This is not at all unusual. First, Trump did not "jump the gun", no President waits until a retiring justice has actually left to nominate their successor. In most instances the "announcement" is in conjunction with the official notification that they are retiring (and it is usually effective upon the appointment of their successor). Trump waited until after Kennedy had announced (and formally transmitted the official notification) his retirement.

                      As for the hearings not commencing until September, that is also pretty par for the course, as almost nothing is done over the Summer recess.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                        This is not at all unusual. First, Trump did not "jump the gun", no President waits until a retiring justice has actually left to nominate their successor. In most instances the "announcement" is in conjunction with the official notification that they are retiring (and it is usually effective upon the appointment of their successor). Trump waited until after Kennedy had announced (and formally transmitted the official notification) his retirement.

                        As for the hearings not commencing until September, that is also pretty par for the course, as almost nothing is done over the Summer recess.
                        Blah blah blah... I’m STILL anxious to get on with it.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                          Blah blah blah... I’m STILL anxious to get on with it.
                          Ok, again with dismissing objective facts because they interfere with your feeeeelings. *grin*

                          It would be idiotic to do it now when nobody is paying attention. Starting in September maximizes the political heat for several red state Senate Democrats up for reelection in states where their voters overwhelmingly support Kavanaugh's appointment.
                          Last edited by Marcus1124; 9 hours ago.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Dems need to go for the "undecided" vote to win, as usual. Their base isn't as important, a bit of drama for the press from a few of the usual players will take care of the required outrage and the "I did what I could" excuses. I don't think they'll need two weeks; a couple of days' drama by D's, who then need to get into campaign mode. Let a few lefty press outlets extend the outrage while the House members gear up the campaign.

                            As for the abortion issue being a litmus test for the independent voter, it looks like a wash (about even, pro/against). Link:
                            https://news.gallup.com/poll/170249/...-pro-life.aspx
                            Most polls show that for those who vote primarily on abortion as an issue, pro-life are higher in number than pro-choice. So called "moderates" or "centrists" are far less likely than either liberals or conservatives to vote primarily on abortion.

                            And that is also irrelevant insofar as Supreme Court nominees are concerned. Those poll are measures of their political view, from the center to the right, those same voters are increasingly likely to believe that it is the people, through their elected representatives that should decide the issue, and not courts. This is why going full-on over the top vociferously hysterical opposed to Kavanaugh is a Catch-22 for the democrats; their base demand it, and will be angry if they don't, and that position is more likely than not o alienate "moderates."

                            The REAL reason thoughtful democrats are fearful of Roe v. Wade being overturned is not the current polling (which they should view as very good for them should it be overturned in that people would presumably then be more inclined to vote for candidates who will keep it legal), they are afraid that once the issue is back in the hands of voters, and people no longer have the moral cop out of telling themselves it doesn't matter who they vote for, because the Supreme Court has decided for us, will once again do more in depth reflection on the morality of their current views...and this won't be for the good of the left long-term.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                              Most polls show that for those who vote primarily on abortion as an issue, pro-life are higher in number than pro-choice. So called "moderates" or "centrists" are far less likely than either liberals or conservatives to vote primarily on abortion.

                              And that is also irrelevant insofar as Supreme Court nominees are concerned. Those poll are measures of their political view, from the center to the right, those same voters are increasingly likely to believe that it is the people, through their elected representatives that should decide the issue, and not courts. This is why going full-on over the top vociferously hysterical opposed to Kavanaugh is a Catch-22 for the democrats; their base demand it, and will be angry if they don't, and that position is more likely than not o alienate "moderates."

                              The REAL reason thoughtful democrats are fearful of Roe v. Wade being overturned is not the current polling (which they should view as very good for them should it be overturned in that people would presumably then be more inclined to vote for candidates who will keep it legal), they are afraid that once the issue is back in the hands of voters, and people no longer have the moral cop out of telling themselves it doesn't matter who they vote for, because the Supreme Court has decided for us, will once again do more in depth reflection on the morality of their current views...and this won't be for the good of the left long-term.
                              That assumes the leftist voter generally doesn't consider ethical issues, either personally or politically. That's a stretch, considering the base of modern liberal political action (fe Civil Rights Acts). One can argue the voter -in general- is burned out on the amoral, cynical nature of politicians across the spectrum. But a particular moral advantage that the right has over the left at present? ...That's a pitch by the right to make their voting base feel better, rather than a reflection of their positions or their choice of elected officials .

                              I'd argue that there is a portion of non-voters who are basically nihlists or anarchists, who include politics on their ignore list. It is there we can find the core of moral decay, rather than the right/left voting block as a rule.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X