The future of abortion in the US

Well, answer the original question. What is my faith?

anti religionists/anti Christian

I beg your pardon?

You're pardoned.

No. Explain your comment because I genuinely don’t understand it.

Be prepared to have to riddle him with harpoons, and have him drag you for 50 miles.

Just messing with you. I'll edit it to something more accurate.

Dayton, you don’t have the intelligence to win a debate. Don’t try and troll unless you’ve learned how to do it.

One of the most fundamental things we have known about the Big Bang for literally decades is that our understanding of physics and mathematics doesn't allow us to see what happened "before" it.

The fact you don't know that means one of two things:

1. You haven't even bothered to do a skimming of Wikipedia level of investigation into the things you argue against.
or
2. You were already aware of that and are debating in bad faith.

Either way, it does nothing but imply your own views are built on incredibly flimsy foundations and aren't spending serious time addressing.

define "child" so we have a common frame of reference.

Do I needs to walk you through this?

*sigh*

Okay.

Current court as of now:

1. Open seat: likely to be filled by someone under 60 with the expectation that with good health they will serve 25-30 years.
2. Gorsuch - 50 - expected to serve another 25-30 years
3. Kagan - 58 - presumably another 20+ years
4. Roberts - 63 - 15-20 years
5. Sotomayor - 64 - ditto
6. Alieto - 68 - 10-15 years
7. Thomas - 70 - see below
8. Bryer - 79 - any year now
9. Ginsburg - 85 - any day now

Assuming Trump gets his pick - and he will - that is five absolutely committed cons with no swinger, and 4 libs.

So, in reverse order, RBG will either die before 2021 and be replaced by a conservative, thereby making it 6-3, or survive to 2021 and (assuming your premise that the next president is Dem and begins to serve in 2021) is replaced by another liberal and the court doesn't shift and remains 5-4.

Bryer seems healthier and one would assume he can hold out to 2021 - same as above, either we get a nightmare scenario of 6 or even 7 cons...or it stays the same

Thomas is the interesting case. Rumor has it he's thinking about retirement - IF he is he will surely do so in time for Trump to fill his seat and while that doesn't shift the court, it moves another con slot into the 20-30 years category. Basically the liberals only hope right now is that he thinks he can stay, or that Trump will be reelected...then he strokes out while a Dem is president. That is basically the ONE situation where you might go to a lib-friendly majority within the next decade and it is basically dependent on the two seniors NOT dying while Thomas does (or is incapacitated at least) and all of it timed right and assumed a Dem wins the next election.

Aleito - will either retire for Trump, or presume to outlive the next president after him. Barring health issues he's not "in play" for at least 2 presidential terms and probably 3 after this one. Too far in the future to make predictions.

All the rest are 15, 20, or more years out and irrelevant to your question.

So, if all the random possibilities come up just right, in one specific scenario, the damage of this court MIGHT last less than a decade - in all others it's surely 20 years or more.

That's not just abortion either, but Obergefell and every other LGB/T equality decision or law (save, MAYBE, they wouldn't reverse Lawrence)

The SCOTUS should never have been used as a means of bypassing Congress as the lawmaking branch of the US government any more than Exec. Orders should be used as a similar 'end-around.'

The left successfully elevated SCOTUS into a mechanism to effect extra-legislative policy-making that furthered a leftist agenda and now they will lose this (imo offensive) cheat. If Trump picks new justices of SCOTUS that philosophically will not arrogate lawmaking unto themselves - this will in fact restore SCOTUS to its legitimate purpose and function within the three branches.

TLDR: The left will only be losing something they should never have had in the first place.

Does this apply to Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia as well? Asking for a friend.

New Supreme Court justice could weigh in on abortion quickly

Don't trust anyone peddling the "oh, don't worry about it, nothing will really change" line. The right has been planning this moment for a long time.

Overturning a badly decided case is a good thing, not an example of a leftist activist court making law by court decision, usurping power expressly granted to Congress alone.

Probably the worst bad decisions ever in SCOTUS history:
Dred Scott
Korematsu
Plessy v Ferguson
Roe v. Wade
Buck v Bell
Wickard v Filburn

Brown v Topeka overturned #3 on that list. Overturning a wrong decision is a good thing, not activism. "Activism" (instead of adjudicating the facts based on the written law on the page) was behind the Plessy case in the first place, reflecting a popular social argument at the time.

Interesting you mentioned the Dred Scott decision. We know now that President James Buchanan leaned on one of the members of the court to rule with the majority because he didn't want it being seen as merely a "pro south" decision. Buchanan actually felt that the court ruling on the issue would make it "settled law" (heard that term before) and thus tamp down the growing tensions that led to the Civil War.

Instead of tamping down tensions it aggravated them dramatically.

Wow

Right. You idiots are sure it happened, yet you have no idea what caused it, and propose it popped

No.

Nope. You may wish to educate yourself. I mean, on anything really. But specifically the scientific method.

We are not 100% certain the Big Bang happened. It is a theory. However, IF it happened, we can predict certain measurable phenomena would exist that would indicate this.

We've measured them.

They do.

BTW they were predicted prior to having the tech needed to measure them, so this wasn't a case of effect leading cause.

Now, this doesn't mean we're absolutely 100% correct.

What it DOES mean is that we have several billion times the amount of physical evidence for the Big Bang that you guys have for God.

Now we still can't rule out God, because a being that is supernatural is, by definition, possibly immeasurable BY natural means (including our science).

Likewise, I can't rule out Twilight Sparkle or the PowerPuff Girls.

Occam's Razor though - if you CAN explain the universe without the need for a God, do so.

It's a symptom of our prehistory IMO that we have to fill anything we can't explain fully with "God" rather than "we just don't know yet". Because the latter fills some of us with pure unadulterated fear.

Let fear guide us? Fuck that noise.

Loving was by the numbers, textbook case, nine Sotomayors could've gotten there, blindfolded, without a map.

State law struck down, unconstitutional.

Right there in Fourteenth Amend.: 'nor shall state deprive any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Court Opinion could've been two lines, my paraphrase of 14, and get the fuck out of here with that. Paraphrased.

Not remotely activist or controversial to a rational judge that applies law, not public popularity or their opinion of it.

Exactly.

Let's figure out where your problem with the theory is @TheLonelySquire.

Which of the following do you disagree with:

1. That all our observations of the Universe show it to be expanding in all directions.
2. That observation of far off objects allows us to see them as they existed billions of years ago.
3. Those observations all suggest that the laws of physics are consistent throughout the universe both in terms of space and time.
4. That if you backtrack the observed expansion, it leads to the entire universe being in a single area roughly 14.7 billion years ago.
5. When current physics runs the math on the universe being in that single area it isn't able to calculate back any further.

If you don't disagree with any of those statements then it means you too believe in the Big Bang.

If you do disagree with one or more of those statements then please let us know so we can discuss your alternate theory.

Yet more bullshit. The Court wasn't "liberal activist" until the Warren Court. Before that they had been "Conservative Activists" - on steroids - since the Civil War.

But Conservatives never see judicial activism in their favor, they just see the court "being correct"

EXACT same logic applies to Obergefell.

Concession logged.
Now piss off.

Yet more bullshit. The Court wasn't "liberal activist" until the Warren Court. Before that they had been "Conservative Activists" - on steroids - since the Civil War.

But Conservatives never see judicial activism in their favor, they just see the court "being correct"


Also, when the next justice is seated, you'll see judicial activism moving things to the right so hard it will make your head explode (probably with joy)
It's been going on for some time, and the pace will ramp up considerably when Roberts becomes the "middle" vote.

They will be rubber stamping Evangelical Christianity is the defacto national religion within the next couple of years.

I'm not helping a nut case who masquerades as woman with defining a child. Sorry buddy.

Says the nutcase that believes an invisible sky giant cares what you do with your pee-pee, and bum-bum, and how you dispose of your jizzum.

Where's the wolf exactly?

Your cries are becoming tiresome.

[Anyway, what so wrong with prohibiting murder if science tells us there a sentient life at 26 weeks?]

And you're worried that Americans will start being mean to you again?

It's little moments like this where I'm reminded of what an absolute shit you can be, and I also remember you deserve all the Harry Potter 7 sized novels El Chup has vollied at your thick head over the years.