|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:30 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:47 am
Do you know of any websites that detail what is on the Supreme court's agenda for the day?
I really want to know when they're going to hear most of these cases... but the most I've found is a detailed list of past rulings by date, not pending trials confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:55 am
Talon-chan Do you know of any websites that detail what is on the Supreme court's agenda for the day? I really want to know when they're going to hear most of these cases... but the most I've found is a detailed list of past rulings by date, not pending trials confused No I don't...and Google isn't really helping me that much in finding one. If you were interested in the second article and when that was going to happen, it said they would be looking at it in the fall. I think voices were raised because the issue just got put on the list. I'm sure when the day comes, it will be all over the news though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:30 pm
i saw the thing about that on the news, the south dakota thing... the choicers called it a "great loss for women everywhere"- what, the loss of unneccesary death? well then, some losses are apparently good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:11 am
Oh look, it looks like South Dakota is using its choice of legaslative action to control it's own territory.
BURN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:00 am
They have every right, regardless of what the RvW rulign says. The subject of abortion is not foudn anywhere inthe constitution, and so it is up to the states to decide on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:53 am
Ehrm...don't forget that according to the constitution, slavery was legal. We didn't leave it up to states to decide after a certian point, though.
If you look abortion being outlawed like enslavement, it makes sense to want to override states rights.
Doesn't mean it's right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 am
Its because slaves were treated and looked upon as sub-human. If I beilive straight, the words person are hardly foudn in the constitution. It says man and mankind (please correct me if I'm wrong) So, persons are not garuanteed rights, humans, regardless of their condition or age, are granted rights. How ever, they exploit a loop-hole. They says its not human. (Science and commen sence saysother wise.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
