Comments on: Pelosi: Don't Let GOP Turn Back Clock on Women
Add a Comment
- Why does CBS or any other news outlet even print this type of blatant lie. No where on any conservative list is to repeal any woman's rights. I know I am very conservative and do not support that agenda. I believe a woman's rights are on solid ground. I do not accept the idea of abortion on demand or for any reason. But that is just a difference of opinion than the liberal left and main stream media can't seem to wrap their head around. That anybody would differ on their opinion on issues. And this is an issue that has been contentious for many years now. It is not going to go away just because liberals say it must be so. That is why we have the freedom of speech, that is why we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I understand the the liberals think these right only apply to them, they are wrong, it applies to everyone, including dissenters to the current policy.
- Reply to this comment
-
- You missed Sharron Angle's and Joe Miller's stance on RAPISTS' RIGHTS; Where the rapists' victims are to be required BY LAW to carry the RAPIST's babies to term and provide sole support for the Rapists' children. Even worse Ms Angle and Mr Miller want to impose BY LAW their judgement on the doctor patient relationship blocking life saving medical procedures to mothers whose only option to survive is the termination of the pregnancy. That is a pretty arrogant couple of usurpations of women's rights in this country advocated by the Tea Party / Republicans this year.
- by jwilwade October 11, 2010 11:45 PM EDT hey variablespanne: Your wrong the only binding opinion is that of the Supreme court. ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are around 10,000 petitions for cases to the Supreme Court a year now and less than 100 cases actually are heard in oral arguments with another 50 or 60 cases decided without oral argument -- if the Supreme Court only decides around 160 cases year out of 10,000 some one has to decide the other 9,840 cases -- clearly those cases are decided by either the district or appellate courts.
- Reply to this comment
-
- according to this the 9840 cases NOT REVIEWED by the Supreme court are decided in the appellate courts. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.
- Given that the Supreme Court renders opinions on 160 out of 10,000 application a year. The the appeals courts handle 50,000 to 60,000 cases a year and the district courts handle around 230,000 cases a year (not counting immigration courts and tax courts in the above.) Clearly The vast majority of district court cases are decided without any appellate review -- around 170,000 -- that would infer that in those 170,000 cases the lawyer on the losing side could find no justification in any precedents established in any court on which to base to appeal. IF your work as a district court judge was reviewed by your district's appellate judges and the supreme court justices -- would you not for your own reputation alone be very careful not to buck either of their prior precedents (decisions) unless your case and decision had STRONG Compelling justification to modify and possibly reverse a standing precedent of either level of appellate court levels in which the case could be heard? In fact the statistics indicate that the district judges successfully terminate around 3/4 of the cases they hear with no appeal. Likewise the Appellate justices observing the precedents of the Supreme Court successfully conclude between 4/5 and 5/6s of the cases without application appeal to the Supreme Court and furthermore over 99% of the appellate court cases are not decided by the Supreme Court at all. so in fact the vast majority of all appeals are decided by the Circuit Courts and are never heard by the Supreme court.
- by jwilwade October 11, 2010 11:39 PM EDT ... And no it can not be changed by the courts only the Supreme court in the end will interpret the meaning of the law as it applies to each case. ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Historically in this country the Supreme Court generally hears fewer and fewer cases every term. Many decisions are made in the lower courts of this country and either refused appellate review (no question by the appellate judges of the propriety of the decision by the district judge) or decided in the appellate court and denied SCOTUS review (no question by the supreme court justices of the propriety of the decision by either the district judge or the appellate judges). So more and more you are wrong and the Supreme Court only reviews cases of an urgent priority or those that in court jargon have ripened and are ready for the establishment of a national standard. Appellate court reviewed decisions in this country are only legally binding in the appellate district of the review however many such decisions are given credence when the other appellate districts confront a related matter unless there is a different precedent in effect in that appellate district. District judges are bound by the national (SCOTUS decisions) as well as their appellate court's decisions and often respect other appellate district decisions when they do not conflict with the preceding two sets of decision they are bound to uphold. Yes, in this country different appellate districts can have different interpretations of the same law -- DADT is one example of this today. It remains debatable whether the supreme court will impose a national standard for this law or portions of this law before congress amends or repeals the law. Your assertion that the Supreme Court decides everything is wrong -- the Supreme Court has the OPTION to decide everything but wisely the judgement not to do so. They prioritize their work based on urgency or ripeness depending on the evaluations of the sitting Justices a case by case basis.
- Reply to this comment
- by jwilwade October 11, 2010 11:39 PM EDT Any constitution by any country is a living document in the since of the word it is not written in stone it can be changed new laws can be adopted. ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea whose constitution you are talking about but no LAW in this country amends the constitution. Terms in the constitution can be defined by law and the constitution often states which terms or more often powers are definable by simple statute. Outside of the amendment process which for all practical purposes (ie the inadequate definition of the constitutional convention process in the constitution and the unlikely possibility that 2/3 of the states will agree on common rules for conducting one (such as deciding how many voting representatives will be permitted from each state and how they are to be selected and where and when and how long they are to meet and what percent of them under what procedures are required for passage of any provision and even what items are to be considered on an agenda) will be decided by a concurrence of 2/3 of Congress AND 3/4 of the STATES
- Reply to this comment
- Turn back the clock on a record breaking $1.47 trillion deficit for this year? YOU BET. Turn back the clock on over a year of 9.5% unemployment? YOU BET. Turn back the clock on a horrible health care bill that will result in giving most Americans higher cost of health care and will place a terrible burden on states? YOU BET! Turn back a year of expanding the federal government, at the expense of suffering businesses and tax payers? YOU BET!!!!!!
- Reply to this comment
- mORTAR SAYS "Federal government the right to regulate a firearm or any other instrument of the soldier that is made in Virgnia and sold in Virginia. It does give it interstate commerce powers. But it does not give intrastate powers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bush Administration Justice Department with Alberto Gonzales as AG argued this exact case before the Supreme Court -- the difference is that the State was California and the product was Marijuana. The decision in that case was repeated in the Michigan health insurance case -- "The court held Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce." Your problems with the definition of Interstate Commerce and the potential for regulation of intrastate commerce should be directed to the Republicans that argued for the courts to make this interpretation.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Again health insurance is not a fire arm or anything you transport across state lines. In fact you can not buy Insurance across state lines so your argument is false and fake fro its premise. The Federal Gov can not as I am sure the Supreme court will hold force any American citizen to purchase any product against their will. The interstate commerce clause plays no role what so ever in the debate.
- Jwilwade -- Sorry when it comes to your opinion and that of a federal judge constitutionally empowered to make binding interpretations of the constitution in this country the opinion of a FEDERAL district court judge is binding until overridden by an appellate court or the supreme court. Any of us can have an opinion as to the validity of the judge's decision however the only opinion binding legally in this country according to the constitution is that of a FEDERAL JUDGE.
- hey variablespanne: Your wrong the only binding opinion is that of the Supreme court. Any Federal judge can and are often overturned in the supreme court.The Congress can then rewrite the law and the process starts all over again. Federal Judges have districts the Supreme court has the USA. The Federal court as important as they are to the process are only a step in the process not the end of the process.
- Jwilwade -- Where is the insurance company you buy health insurance from headquartered? -- mine is across a state line making it interstate commerce. More lies on your part. The policies they sell here are regulated by my state but the company itself is not headquartered in my state and I acquired the policy by contacting an agent over the phone who also may not have been in my state. Right now you cannot buy insurance offerings not approved by your state insurance commissioner, personally I agree this is a good idea compliant with state's rights (the 10th amendment).
- Hey variablespanner: If you had actually ever read the Constitution or studied any history you would know it was designed to be a living document but with strict guidelines as to the powers of each branch of GOV. The Constitution can change and has changed and sometimes only by the interpretation of the laws by the Supreme court. You can easily argue there is no provision that gives woman a right to an abortion but it is not so much as a provision but the context of other laws that allowed the Supreme Court to conclude it was implied by virtue of other amendments. This happens sometimes times throughout our history as well as out right amendments to change the constitution. It is a very hard process to do and with good reason but it can and has been done. The founding fathers were very wise indeed to make it hard so as to make everyone think clearly and also to make it possible as we grew as a nation. They also held the wisdom to make the NON POLITICAL Supreme court arbiter of what the constitution really says in each case as it is applied. Very smart people indeed. Try reading the letters of the founding fathers and the forming of the constitution and the actual document itself you would be amassed at how simple it is and at the same time written in a way as to leave very broad interpretations. That is what we have the Supreme court and 9 members for so that there is a majority at any time that interprets the meaning of the laws as they apply to any case.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Interpretation by the SCOTUS is NEVER supposed to change the Constitution. The ONLY ones allowed to change the Constitution are the States. That is the nly "living" part of the Constitution, as intended by the Founders and by the law. Of course, we have lost sight of that!
- Yes Mortar SCOTUS does not change the CONSTITUTION however the federal courts are the only entities in this country empowered to interpret the constitution at times men disagree as to the meaning of the document. The constitution also provides that SCOTUS is the FINAL INTERPRETER of the content of the US constitution and their decisions in terms of constitutionality can only be modified by amendment of the Constitution or subsequent deliberations by SCOTUS.
- Mortarman329 up until now I have basically agreed with you but you are mistaken about only the states can change the constitution. The states are the only one that can amend the constitution the constitution itself is changed almost every year as new president is set as in the case of Abortion. The Supreme court since its conception when it had 6 members then 5 then 6 then 7 then 9 etc.. anyway it is a living document as it is open to interpretation and that is why we have a Supreme court to make sure it is interpreted in the context of the case presented so as to grow with the nation it was designed to protect. So technically only the states can ratify amendment change but by practice it is done more often through interpretation as applied to each case heard at the Supreme court.
- Many people complain that "living document" means the courts can change the meaning of the document over time. It was in this context that I agree with the rejection that the constitution is a "living document" that changes meaning as only time passes. More properly the constitution is an amendable document in my mind which lead to its success and longevity.
- Any constitution by any country is a living document in the since of the word it is not written in stone it can be changed new laws can be adopted. Not living in the since it walks and talks. And no it can not be changed by the courts only the Supreme court in the end will interpret the meaning of the law as it applies to each case. In that since it is indeed a living document flexible and open to interpretation.
- Mortar -- my dear ignorant boy -- please inform us as to any of the founding fathers that had the slightest understanding of HEALTH INSURANCE. This could be difficult in the late 1700's considering that "Health insurance in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon. The first insurance plans began during the Civil War (1861-1865). The earliest ones only offered coverage against accidents related from travel by rail or steamboat. " and how the founding father could understand the current attributes of a health insurance policy? Someone posted a good argument to your original intent content recently -- under your definition of original intent the US constitution grants people the RIGHT TO BEAR THE ARMS known to founding fathers -- a musket. Another writer interprets natural born citizen to be one born using the medical procedures available in the late 1700's when the constitution was enacted. (Meaning very few if any citizens are qualified to be president) -- your self serving (politically motivated) original intent garbage is clearly as absurd as both of the preceding conclusions of constitutional interpretation using original intent.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Child Variable, please understand something here...the brilliance of the Founders was they understood that they didnt know everything...and didnt know exactly what the future held. So, they left us the possibility of changing our government as we saw fit. But they only gave us two ways of doing it. One is amendment. Two is abolishing it.....Now, the Founders didnt say "musket." The FOunders stated "the instruments of the soldier." And they went on in their writings to talk about their intent. Their intent was to have the power of the soldier in the hands of Americans, not just the government. Why? Well, they stated this clarly...they wanted the American people to be able to take down their government by force if need be. So, when you look at their definition nd their intent, it is clear what they intended...and what the 2nd Amendment covers. But again, nowhere in the Constitution does it ive the Federal government the right to regulate a firearm or any other instrument of the soldier that is made in Virgnia and sold in Virginia. It does give it interstate commerce powers. But it does not give intrastate powers. Again, the ENTIRE Constitution, including its Amendments are relevant. None of them play off on the others.
- Mortar -- original intent -- what arms could the founding fathers mean -- they knew nothing of atomic weapons, or machine guns, or hand grenades -- how can you claim based on original intent they permit any of these in the limited and enumerated powers granted based especially on your childish literal interpretation that yields profoundly stupid statements like "And the Federal government is not authorized by the States thru the Constitution to spend one penny on healthcare." based solely on an argument that the word healthcare does not appear in the enumerated powers of the constitution that you now so completely deny is true of political favor as it becomes more and ore evident even to you that many Tea Party / Republicans are on the verge or snatching DEFEAT from the jaws of victory because of these absurd and very unpopular delusions about this country and it's legal foundation.
- They did not need to know about health insurance. They did not know about space travel either. That is besides the point. The constitution gives certain powers to the Federal Gov and those that are not Given are clearly stated to remain powers of the individual states. No where in the Constitution or any interpretation of it to date is there a case that says the FEDERAL GOV can force a US citizen to buy something they do not want to buy or fine them if they do not. That power does not exist. Now MAYBE the supreme court will disagree with me when they hear the case but I rather doubt it.
- The only woman Pelosi is worried about is herself losing the speaker position, and her gulf stream capable of non stop flights to San Francisco. Last year she spent $175,000 on booze just for her airplane. I can see November from my house.
- Reply to this comment
- Mortar -- Using your argument please cite the constitutional provision that grants the Federal government to pay one penny for anyone's health insurance. or have you forgotten your own interpretation with only one poorly stated exception (in conflict with this quote) for the active military. "And the Federal government is not authorized by the States thru the Constitution to spend one penny on healthcare." You still haven't addressed the VETERANS that have paid through their service and those that PAID for MEDICARE through payroll taxes. Your position and often totally contradictory statements still leave you as a heartless thieving killer the stealing earned HEALTH CARE protections of many in this country.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Okay, I will do this thinking you are actually asking a question that you want an answer to. Here's the deal...the Federal government is given enumerated powers. Thus, it is allowed to enact laws that put those powers into work. So, you want a military? The Federal government is allowed to enact all of the laws necessary to put into place and keep a military. You want a post office? Well, the Constitution gives it the power to have one. So, it can enact laws that create and operate a post office. Well, who do you think runs post offices? Of course, postal workers. So the government pays thruough pay and benefits, its workers to man its post offices. As provided by the Constitution. So, in short, offices created by the Federal government to meet its enumerated powers responsibilities are constitutional, and as uch, those workers are entitled to the pay and benefits (benefits are nothing but another form of pay) accorded them as a provision for hem being hired. Understand?
- Oh, and n a prisoner...I told you I would rather just put a bullet in his head and be done with it. But, if you break the law, and the law has provisions by which you are to be incarcerated, you must provide proper care for that individual. That is inherent to the power...just as paying postal clerks is inherent to providng a post office. Whatis not inherent is giving money or benefits to people who have provided no service for such benefits. That is a form of theft.
- Boy could we taxpayers save some money if we took her Gulfstream away from her. Bet she flies back to San Fran every weekend.
- Mortar the Question was to name the enumerated power that addresses health insurance (HINT the words health insurance do not appear in the constitution to your literal and childish interpretations of the past will not work). You have dodged the question with irrelevant gibberish because you know you cannot using your standards justify the federal government's authority to offer health care with your obvious lie -- "And the Federal government is not authorized by the States thru the Constitution to spend one penny on healthcare." even conceding your poorly worded (and conflicting) statement concerning the active military as being an appropriately worded exception. Secodnly back to original intent -- if the founding fathers had no concept of health insurance -- and your original statement is not a lie -- "And the Federal government is not authorized by the States thru the Constitution to spend one penny on healthcare." Clearly your justification now for the postal service is another lie (or another omission. Are the veterans another lie or omission? Are elected officials another lie or omission? Is Medicare paid for through payroll taxes another lie or omission? A federal court in Michigan ruled in the last week that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REQUIRE THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE under the interstate commerce clause citing a legal precedent established under the Bush Administration by the DOJ under the supervision of Alberto Gonzales OR THE PAYMENT OF A TAX under the 16th amendment to offset the governments potential expenses under medicaid. So from numer sources includig a federal judge empowered to make a binding decision -- you are WRONG AGAIN mortar.
