On 5/12/2022 12:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTR1701
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> As someone who strongly supports free speech, the right
>>>> to keep & bear arms and general freedom from government
>>>> intrusion in our lives, (as I do) you can't turn around and say
>>>> it's ok for the government to force women to give birth to
>>>> retarded incest rape babies because the Constitution doesn't
>>>> have a specific amendment preventing that.
>>>
>>> I'm a constitutionalist more than I am any of those things you listed and
>>> the Constitution simply doesn't guarantee a right to commit abortion.
>>
>> "The law is an ass".
>>
>> Slavery was perfectly legal back in the day and just because there wasn't
>> a Constitutional amendment at the time preventing it, doesn't make it ok.
>> It was still wrong and even those practicing it knew that
>
> Of course it was, which was why it was abolished and an amendment passed
> to prevent it everywhere.
>
> Exactly what I'm suggesting be done here.
>
>> Now you’re hiding behind legal mumbo-jumbo
>
> I'm struggling to understand what I've said that qualifies as
> mumbo-jumbo.
>
>> How can you rail against covid restrictions (as I did) including the calls
>> for mandatory vaccinations, then turn around and say it's cool for the
>> government to force women to give birth to retarded incest rape
>> babies?
>
> I said the federal government had no power to impose Wuhan Flu
> restrictions, just as I'm now saying the federal government had no power
> to regulate abortion. Neither power is delegated to the federal
> government in Article I, Section 8. I'm being perfectly consistent.
>
> What I'm *not* doing is embracing the illegal assumption of federal
> power when it works for me, then opposing it when it doesn't.
>
>>> If we as a society want abortion (and by implication sexual privacy)
>>> to be a federally protected right, then let's amend the Constitution
>>> and make it so.
>>
>> The LAST thing anybody wants is the People demanding Constitutional changes
>> because if we get abortion rights carved in stone like that, then the
>> commie-pinko Dems will be coming after the 2nd Amendment next and who
>> knows what other retarded shit (i.e. "hate speech" laws) gets permanently
>> inshrined and shoved up our ass sideways?
>
> You're assuming there would be equal support for repealing the 1st and
> 2nd Amendments if an abortion amendment is passed. I don't see that
> happening. There might be a danger of that if a constitutional
> convention is called, but not a simple one-off amendment.
>
>>> I agree that the Republicans are idiots if they push this issue in any way
>>> for the next couple of years, but the leak will really have no impact on
>>> the November elections.
>>
>> It absolutely will have an effect. I've never voted for the Dems outside
>> of city council elections (where party orientation doesn't really matter)
>> but this is putting ME is a position of questioning if I can vote for a Rep
>> if he's pushing to ban abortion, even though I may agree with everything
>> else he supports.
>
> My point is, the Court's ruling is coming out officially this summer
> anyway, so the *leak* is irrelevant. This issue was going to be a factor
> in the election no matter what. The leak didn't do anything that wasn't
> going to be done regardless.

Yes, it was always going to be a factor, but the leak almost surely
affects how *big* a factor -- one way or the other.

On 5/12/2022 3:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <h9cfK.7580$pqKf.3753@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2022 12:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As someone who strongly supports free speech, the right
>>>>>> to keep & bear arms and general freedom from government
>>>>>> intrusion in our lives, (as I do) you can't turn around and say
>>>>>> it's ok for the government to force women to give birth to
>>>>>> retarded incest rape babies because the Constitution doesn't
>>>>>> have a specific amendment preventing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a constitutionalist more than I am any of those things you listed and
>>>>> the Constitution simply doesn't guarantee a right to commit abortion.
>>>>
>>>> "The law is an ass".
>>>>
>>>> Slavery was perfectly legal back in the day and just because there wasn't
>>>> a Constitutional amendment at the time preventing it, doesn't make it ok.
>>>> It was still wrong and even those practicing it knew that
>>>
>>> Of course it was, which was why it was abolished and an amendment passed
>>> to prevent it everywhere.
>>>
>>> Exactly what I'm suggesting be done here.
>>>
>>>> Now you’re hiding behind legal mumbo-jumbo
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to understand what I've said that qualifies as
>>> mumbo-jumbo.
>>>
>>>> How can you rail against covid restrictions (as I did) including the calls
>>>> for mandatory vaccinations, then turn around and say it's cool for the
>>>> government to force women to give birth to retarded incest rape
>>>> babies?
>>>
>>> I said the federal government had no power to impose Wuhan Flu
>>> restrictions, just as I'm now saying the federal government had no power
>>> to regulate abortion. Neither power is delegated to the federal
>>> government in Article I, Section 8. I'm being perfectly consistent.
>>>
>>> What I'm *not* doing is embracing the illegal assumption of federal
>>> power when it works for me, then opposing it when it doesn't.
>>>
>>>>> If we as a society want abortion (and by implication sexual privacy)
>>>>> to be a federally protected right, then let's amend the Constitution
>>>>> and make it so.
>>>>
>>>> The LAST thing anybody wants is the People demanding Constitutional changes
>>>> because if we get abortion rights carved in stone like that, then the
>>>> commie-pinko Dems will be coming after the 2nd Amendment next and who
>>>> knows what other retarded shit (i.e. "hate speech" laws) gets permanently
>>>> inshrined and shoved up our ass sideways?
>>>
>>> You're assuming there would be equal support for repealing the 1st and
>>> 2nd Amendments if an abortion amendment is passed. I don't see that
>>> happening. There might be a danger of that if a constitutional
>>> convention is called, but not a simple one-off amendment.
>>>
>>>>> I agree that the Republicans are idiots if they push this issue in any way
>>>>> for the next couple of years, but the leak will really have no impact on
>>>>> the November elections.
>>>>
>>>> It absolutely will have an effect. I've never voted for the Dems outside
>>>> of city council elections (where party orientation doesn't really matter)
>>>> but this is putting ME is a position of questioning if I can vote for a Rep
>>>> if he's pushing to ban abortion, even though I may agree with everything
>>>> else he supports.
>>>
>>> My point is, the Court's ruling is coming out officially this summer
>>> anyway, so the *leak* is irrelevant. This issue was going to be a factor
>>> in the election no matter what. The leak didn't do anything that wasn't
>>> going to be done regardless.
>>
>> Yes, it was always going to be a factor, but the leak almost surely
>> affects how *big* a factor -- one way or the other.
>
> Why?

If the ruling had been delivered closer to the election, outrage
would've had less chance to 1) cool off, or 2) build up.