America bans abortion but does not have a problem with small kids being shot at school.
Mike Harding said
05:33 PM Jun 25, 2022
I suppose the only real difference is that of time.
In any event your post is wrong on both counts.
Plain Truth said
06:15 PM Jun 25, 2022
Some people just don't read the rule on how the new law applies.
86GTS said
07:21 PM Jun 25, 2022
We live in Australia, who cares about the nut cases in the USA, let them take care of their own problems, we have our own issues to worry about.
Plain Truth said
07:44 PM Jun 25, 2022
86GTS wrote:
We live in Australia, who cares about the nut cases in the USA, let them take care of their own problems, we have our own issues to worry about.
Keith,you have made comments before on the USA,doesn't this topic suit you.
-- Edited by Plain Truth on Saturday 25th of June 2022 07:45:23 PM
dorian said
05:26 AM Jun 26, 2022
It's just another case of a handful of pompous prats making de facto laws which affect the lives of millions of people. The same stupidity happens in Australia. At the very least, a 5-4 decision should be thrown out as statistically insignificant. On the other hand a vote of 50 million versus 40 million would make sense.
That said, I would not want to abort any child that I had fathered.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 26th of June 2022 10:07:19 AM
Gundog said
07:40 AM Jun 26, 2022
All supreme court did was put down roe v wade, which in effect returned the question of abortion back to the states.
Whist this not correct t analogy, Remember they are the United States of America some things are outside the Federal Governments Judicial authority, remember the different actions of our States over covid,
Without commenting on the direct issue I believe the problem is judges overriding legislation, the same thing is beginning in Australia. Our elected representatives should have the final decision not the judges.
Neil
DMaxer said
10:13 AM Jun 26, 2022
Courts cannot overrule legislation unless a Government has acted outside its Constitutional authority or it has acted ultra vires Woolman.
What superior courts can do however is find that a previous ruling by an inferior court or a court of equal status was incorrect and against legal principle and redefine the law.
This is overruling the common law, not the statute law and happens regularly as society changes and therefore interpretations change.
rgren2 said
10:24 AM Jun 26, 2022
86GTS wrote:
We live in Australia, who cares about the nut cases in the USA, let them take care of their own problems, we have our own issues to worry about.
No they did not; mearly returned the responsibility to determine access to the states. Kinda just like in Australia. And perfectly consistent with the principles of Democracy whereby the people elect representatives to meet and put the citizen's wants into law.
What the USA Supreme Court did was cause thinking people to wonder about the legitimacy of the instituation. The latest ruling does say that the current members of the court know better than the members of the court who ratified the principles of Roe v Wade decisions. Back then, 7 of 9 (including 5 GOP installed Justices) decided in favour of Roe v Wade. Just now, one personal bias holding Justice has used the incumbent power to say that he knows better than the ones bacck then. Leads to legimate concerns about the role of Precedent and the integrety of the current members of the USA Supreme Court. Effectively, the latest decision extablishes the USA suprem Court as a 4th arm of Government in the USA.
Are We Lost said
05:14 PM Jun 28, 2022
It was all about the constitution. Should states have the say or federal? It would be interesting to see the arguments for each side, and how each side of those arguments could justify taking that position. Clearly it is not black or white, but open for interpetation.
dorian said
05:19 PM Jun 28, 2022
To me, arguing about what The Constitution has to say about abortion is like arguing about what the Bible has to say about the Internet. It's time for America, and Australia, to ask the people of today what they want, and to then amend the constitution accordingly.
Whenarewethere said
05:57 PM Jun 28, 2022
dorian wrote:
To me, arguing about what The Constitution has to say about abortion is like arguing about what the Bible has to say about the Internet. It's time for America, and Australia, to ask the people of today what they want, and to then amend the constitution accordingly.
A bit like a population of less than 4 million, no police stations, muskets & flintlock pistols.
These days a slightly stronger message!
Theres nothing mini about this gun, it is a 7.62×51 mm NATO, six-barreled machine gun which can fire 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute. It is one of the most deadly infantry weapons ever designed.
It is legal for a U.S. citizen (21 years old) to own a minigun. The solo reason these guns are legal is because they were manufactured and registered before May 19th, 1986.
peter67 said
06:45 PM Jun 28, 2022
Hey! I could do with one of those for these pesky parrots.
KevinJ said
06:59 PM Jun 28, 2022
I was thinking Mike could do with one for his problem.
America bans abortion but does not have a problem with small kids being shot at school.
I suppose the only real difference is that of time.
In any event your post is wrong on both counts.
Some people just don't read the rule on how the new law applies.
Keith,you have made comments before on the USA,doesn't this topic suit you.
-- Edited by Plain Truth on Saturday 25th of June 2022 07:45:23 PM
It's just another case of a handful of pompous prats making de facto laws which affect the lives of millions of people. The same stupidity happens in Australia. At the very least, a 5-4 decision should be thrown out as statistically insignificant. On the other hand a vote of 50 million versus 40 million would make sense.
That said, I would not want to abort any child that I had fathered.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 26th of June 2022 10:07:19 AM
All supreme court did was put down roe v wade, which in effect returned the question of abortion back to the states.
Whist this not correct t analogy, Remember they are the United States of America some things are outside the Federal Governments Judicial authority, remember the different actions of our States over covid,
Without commenting on the direct issue I believe the problem is judges overriding legislation, the same thing is beginning in Australia. Our elected representatives should have the final decision not the judges.
Neil
Courts cannot overrule legislation unless a Government has acted outside its Constitutional authority or it has acted ultra vires Woolman.
What superior courts can do however is find that a previous ruling by an inferior court or a court of equal status was incorrect and against legal principle and redefine the law.
This is overruling the common law, not the statute law and happens regularly as society changes and therefore interpretations change.
Apparently lots do.
No they did not; mearly returned the responsibility to determine access to the states. Kinda just like in Australia. And perfectly consistent with the principles of Democracy whereby the people elect representatives to meet and put the citizen's wants into law.
What the USA Supreme Court did was cause thinking people to wonder about the legitimacy of the instituation. The latest ruling does say that the current members of the court know better than the members of the court who ratified the principles of Roe v Wade decisions. Back then, 7 of 9 (including 5 GOP installed Justices) decided in favour of Roe v Wade. Just now, one personal bias holding Justice has used the incumbent power to say that he knows better than the ones bacck then. Leads to legimate concerns about the role of Precedent and the integrety of the current members of the USA Supreme Court. Effectively, the latest decision extablishes the USA suprem Court as a 4th arm of Government in the USA.
A bit like a population of less than 4 million, no police stations, muskets & flintlock pistols.
These days a slightly stronger message!
Theres nothing mini about this gun, it is a 7.62×51 mm NATO, six-barreled machine gun which can fire 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute. It is one of the most deadly infantry weapons ever designed.
It is legal for a U.S. citizen (21 years old) to own a minigun. The solo reason these guns are legal is because they were manufactured and registered before May 19th, 1986.
I was thinking Mike could do with one for his problem.