Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:43:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30
Author Topic: Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)  (Read 54777 times)
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,566
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #700 on: April 07, 2017, 12:17:39 PM »

Gorsuch is a step up from Scalia. He's conservative sure, but qualified with the potential to evolve. If the Dems had dug their feet in Trump would've put up someone worse.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #701 on: April 07, 2017, 12:19:18 PM »

i would have guessed trump would pick hardimann...seemed more like a "salt of the earth"-guy.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #702 on: April 07, 2017, 12:53:05 PM »

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  Cheesy

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Oh, abortion will always be an option for people.  Technology is a beautiful thing.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #703 on: April 07, 2017, 01:01:08 PM »

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  Cheesy

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Ohio's proposed heartbeat ban was vetoed though Tongue  I think the Republican leadership wants to make it extremely difficult to get an abortion and many rank-and-file Republicans probably want it banned, but I don't think the Republican party leadership really wants it to actually be illegal so much as very difficult to get.  On a somewhat related note, the bolded part of your post shows that you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  ApatheticAustrian has the right idea about what they [the party leadership] want:

*snip*

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.

As I said, the Ohio Ban was vetoed for sake of strategy. If Ginsburg was dead, it would have been signed.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #704 on: April 07, 2017, 01:08:13 PM »

ofc there is a wish to ban abortion but banning abortion would be much too costly and creating too much of a backlash.

death by 1000 cuts is much better and slower and less well-known.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #705 on: April 07, 2017, 01:10:33 PM »

Let's now put 10 20-something year-old judges on the Court who will be willing to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but also say that all first-degree murder laws apply to the killing of babies nationwide.  Ending abortion is more important than our system of government itself.  I'm serious!

Ten?  But there are only nine seats!

Sorry!  Your understanding of the Court is about as good as your understanding of chicken eggs.

Nothing says there has to be nine.  If we appoint ten more right now, those ten can be so conservative that they can overrule the other nine (Clarence Thomas would look like RBG next to these hypothetical ten).

You don't actually want this because the spate of theocratic and plutocratic rulings it would issue would cause backlash so severe that it would lead to a Democratic Supermajority in both Houses of Congress, and possibly to a new Constitutional Convention.

Altho to be fair, a constitutional convention would probably just engrave said theocratic and plutocratic rulings into a new constitution, given that Republicans are 1 state legislature short of being able to write a new constitution all by themselves, and Democrats don't seem to care about winning them back.

They would get voted out after 2-3 cycles because living under Christian Sharia would be even less fun than it sounds.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,669


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #706 on: April 07, 2017, 01:13:57 PM »

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  Cheesy

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Oh, abortion will always be an option for people.  Technology is a beautiful thing.

I know this would be politically unpopular, but, once abortion is illegal, I would support a travel ban to any locations where elective abortion is legal to stop any Americans from being aborted and put pressure on those governments to ban it too.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #707 on: April 07, 2017, 01:20:03 PM »

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  Cheesy

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago. 

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Oh, abortion will always be an option for people.  Technology is a beautiful thing.

I know this would be politically unpopular, but, once abortion is illegal, I would support a travel ban to any locations where elective abortion is legal to stop any Americans from being aborted and put pressure on those governments to ban it too.

lmao

(People like you are why I favor abortion rights, fwiw)
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #708 on: April 07, 2017, 01:31:56 PM »

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  Cheesy

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Ohio's proposed heartbeat ban was vetoed though Tongue  I think the Republican leadership wants to make it extremely difficult to get an abortion and many rank-and-file Republicans probably want it banned, but I don't think the Republican party leadership really wants it to actually be illegal so much as very difficult to get.  On a somewhat related note, the bolded part of your post shows that you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  ApatheticAustrian has the right idea about what they [the party leadership] want:

*snip*

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.

As I said, the Ohio Ban was vetoed for sake of strategy. If Ginsburg was dead, it would have been signed.

That bill would've been vetoed either way. 

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.  

Err...the judicial filibuster was abolished.  And what makes you think Republicans wouldn't do the same thing if either of those seats opened up?  If anything, they'd have an even greater incentive to do so than they did with this seat.
Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #709 on: April 07, 2017, 01:34:33 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #710 on: April 07, 2017, 01:35:49 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2017, 01:41:58 PM by Frodo »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #711 on: April 07, 2017, 01:38:59 PM »

the gop is just under the illusion, the legislative filibuster is going to hold now.

if democrats should 50 senate seats and the WH, i would be more than shocked, if the FB wouldn't be gone for good.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #712 on: April 07, 2017, 01:49:03 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 

And it would've gone down identically...
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #713 on: April 07, 2017, 02:31:09 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 

And it would've gone down identically...

Better to use the filibuster on a nominee who could change the composition of the court as opposed to wasting it on someone who wouldn't have. 
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #714 on: April 07, 2017, 02:35:19 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #715 on: April 07, 2017, 02:50:31 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

I fear what Republicans would do once they get rid of the legislative filibuster as well.  And I'm not sure I want to find out. 

This is why I wanted Democrats to keep their powder dry.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #716 on: April 07, 2017, 02:53:12 PM »

There's one good thing coming out of this. It's given me a reason to place Extreme Parody on my ignore list.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #717 on: April 07, 2017, 02:55:04 PM »

There's one good thing coming out of this. It's given me a reason to place Extreme Parody on my ignore list.

you know, you're a moderator, you could actually do something about her
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #718 on: April 07, 2017, 03:02:48 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 

And it would've gone down identically...

Better to use the filibuster on a nominee who could change the composition of the court as opposed to wasting it on someone who wouldn't have. 

Why?
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #719 on: April 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM »

When we spend so much time worrying about the ideological composition of the Court (which I have done too , in the past), then there is something wrong with the Court.
Logged
vote for pedro
Rookie
**
Posts: 185
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: 0.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #720 on: April 07, 2017, 03:12:25 PM »

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch.

There was no "intended purpose."  The fillibuster was created by accident when "cleaning up" the senate rulebook. 

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #721 on: April 07, 2017, 04:06:55 PM »

Pence presiding was interesting.  It must have been for ceremony only.  There wasn't going to be a tie.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #722 on: April 07, 2017, 05:00:32 PM »

Pence presiding was interesting.  It must have been for ceremony only.  There wasn't going to be a tie.

Correct. Other than base pressure, I am still wondering just what animated the Dem strategy here. They have managed to make SCOTuS picks an even more salient issue, and that is one issue, where Trump is not particularly weak, unlike so many other issues. And given that the Pubs seemingly have an advantage in the Senate over the long term, given the Dem troubles in fly over country, and that their numbers are mostly packed into but a few highly populated states, the Pubs will be even more unleashed to stonewall any future Dem President's nominees. It just does not make much sense to me.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #723 on: April 07, 2017, 05:25:16 PM »

Gorsuch is a step up from Scalia. He's conservative sure, but qualified with the potential to evolve. If the Dems had dug their feet in Trump would've put up someone worse.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #724 on: April 07, 2017, 06:23:06 PM »

republicans want to make abortions disappear like smoking.

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.


That's what liberals get for creating the over regulatory state . Regulations used against them when they aren't in power .
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 12 queries.