Do Repub voters even care they were lied to?

[OddBeMe]

“Abortion should be up to the states!” Was the sales pitch.

Now federal congress are passing abortion limits. Well that didn’t take long go back on.

[lightbulb27]

it's a chess game to get what they want, they both play these games to achieve some goal. they will feel good when it's banned, and feel bad when they have to sneak to France to abort their mistress kids, kids without parents grow up and vote liberal and they have to have them killed off in a war because they can't feed or employ them.

Humanity is really sad, they do their best, they aren't perfect. they mean well... they are just nuts on the other side of the other nuts...

[goaded]

OH! OH! I know! They don't. They love it, as long as it "owns" the libs.

[Anonymous]

Conservative voters care about lies? Please…. they thrive on disinformation and falsehoods. They want to use federal power to control people in states that disagree with them. It was never about state’s rights. It was always about control.

[Anonymous]

They never have. Trump's lies exceeded 30,000? They don't even slightly care.

[Avicenna]

When it comes to lying, you should be much more concerned about the lies and corruption coming from the DOJ and other parts of the federal government. But I guess the propaganda organs you read would never mention such things.

The reason why Congress is involved is because leftists decided to get the FEDERAL courts involved in an issue that should be up to the states. And it's within Congress's powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

[Massageman]

Thank you.

[Avicenna]

Odd, are you mad that Biden lied to you about student loan relief?

[OddBeMe]

How did he lie? The right wing SCOTUS scuttled it. Now Bidens turning it into an election wedge.

[Avicenna]

He lied to you, knowing that it had to be passed by Congress, which could have passed it if it wanted to (not that Nancy Pelosi cares about peons like you). So why didn't he try to push it through Congress knowing it would get shot down by federal courts if it were done through executive branch fiat?

But you're too dumb to even realize that.

[Avicenna]

by the way, I think it's a good idea to reduce student loan debt, which makes it even more inexcusable to cynically play on the hopes of people who really thought they'd get debt relief.

[OddBeMe]

Can’t lie you’re right. But still blame Repubs more for stopping the legislation than Dems for promising it.

[Avicenna]

Again, you're wrong. The Republicans didn't take over the House until January 2023. Why didn't Democrats push it through before then? And are you sure that the Democrats could have gotten it through the Senate?

[OddBeMe]

Umm scotus just tossed it dumbass. Along party lines.

[OddBeMe]

Wish scotus didn’t have party lines.
www.npr.org/.../supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-decision

[Stoner710]

So now your for states rights? What happened to the federal government trumps the state governments?

It should be left to the states, yes congress should not be doing this. But this is a natural outcome of the left trying to make the entire country like California and New York. So now we’re gonna make every state like Florida and Texas play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous]

I am still of the opinion that abortion is a state issue alone and very much against any federal politicians effort to federalize it.

We have far to many imperial politicians in D. C. and imperialist in the voting base who think everyone everywhere has to agree to the same law. This is unwise, and not what the constitution says.

If you want everyone to share your views on any form of murder go to war with the world.

[OddBeMe]

So you’re against your own party on this, huh?

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
I am very strongly against the individual members of either party that wish to make law on this or any other domestic issue in Washington D. C. I can't stand arrogant imperialist who can't honor the constitution.

That said neither party is wholly in this camp.

[OddBeMe]

Well the party that argued “abortion should be up tot the states” is now pushing for a federal ban. That should tell you something.

[Opinion Owner]

That is not the party that is a few imperialist members of it

[OddBeMe]

I don’t know what that blather means. Did your politicians say abortion should be left up the states?

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
Many if not most of my politicians retain that constitutionals valid position.

[OddBeMe]

From my research, there’s a lot of debate on the constructions “valid position” which is why SCOTUS rulings are overturned, unless you think Dredd Scott was a good one.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Technically Dredd Scott was a good ruling. People just don't like the outcome and the Judge's racist comments which had no legal relevance to the ruling.

Dredd Scott should have brought his case before Illinois State court NOT the federal court, and he would have won his freedom. Instead Dredd Scott tried to get the federal court to violate the 5th Amendment on the grounds of his mere presence in a Federal territory.

The State of Illinois in which Dredd Scott was also present didn't have that limitation and could have freed him.

As much as you might disagree with it prior to the 13th amendment Dredd Scott was regarded as property. That meant the state simply couldn't take him from the owner without compensation under the 5th amendment which did in fact apply to the Federal laws which governed Federal territories and Federal courts. That was the subject of the case not whether or not you could outlaw slavery. States absolutely did and could outlaw slavery.

[OddBeMe]

This shows your historical contempt. Illinois was a territory at the time and he sued through Missouri state courts which went to SCOTUS.

[OddBeMe]

Not Illinois. But he sued Missouri first because that’s where we ran away from. And you think he should have gone back in chains… wow.

[Opinion Owner]

Illinois became a state in 1818, the Dred Scott was sold to in St Louis, Missouri (also a State 1821) in 1830 to Dr. John Emerson who took him to 218 miles north to Fort Armstrong, Illinois where they remained until 1836. That is 6 years in the free State of Illinois.
Case itself took place in 1856 while Dred Scott was living in Missouri a slave state.

None of that really mattered, the underlying fact of the case is the Missouri Compromise which was about the Missouri territory to include Fort Snelling where Dred Scott had lived during the late 1830s purported to ban slavery under federal law.

The court found that law which purported to take a man's property without compensation to be unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment.

That is a perfectly legitimate observation, what Dredd Scott should have done is gone across the Mississippi river and filed his case in Illinois who's constitution banned slavery from the beginning in 1818.
Instead he first tried to file his case in Missouri a slave state, then in Federal court both of whom had no legal means to free him.

[OddBeMe]

Yes I mistakened Illinois. But either way, any state you file it’ll go to SCOTUS either to decide to take or pass on. And dred Scott obviously was taken. so your point is moot

[Opinion Owner]

I'm sorry your mistaken @oddbeme about that as well.
In 1856, the 14th amendment had not yet been proposed (11 years later) much less used to incorporate (110 years later) so the only reason Dredd Scott could not be freed (the federal 5th amendment) did not exist in Illinois who's constitution banned slavery.

Only today perhaps would Dredd Scott remain a slave due to the 14th amendment incorporation allowing the federal court to overwrite Illinois Constitution Ironically.
That leaves the fugitive slave clause, which while perhaps applicable if he were a slave and ran across in the 1850's was certantly not applicable when he claimed he was freed in 1830.

Dredd Scott was originally taken to Illinois by Dr John Emerson in 1830, so he was not an escape slave. In that act Dr John Emerson knowing Illinois was a free state, effectively freed Dredd Scott under Illinois law.
.

The truth is Dr John Emerson should never have bought Dredd Scott in Missouri with the intention of taking him to Illinois. That was a blatant effort to run around the State's law, he should have left his slave in Missouri. So there is basically no grounds for the federal court to so drastically undermine States rights in 1856.

Doing so anyway would be unthinkable in the 1850's , there is a huge difference between refusing to enforce Federal Anti-Slavery laws in U. S. Territories under the 5th amendment and actually undermining anti-slavery State laws with no 5th amendment justification at all.

The court would essentially be asking all the non-slave states , already actively resisting even extradition of slaves to the slave states to accept slavery domestically. That just not going to happen in the 1850s without a war.

[OddBeMe]

There was an abortion precedent and SCOTUS fcked that in the ass. Just saying, they’re the highest court in the land for a reason. Doesn’t matter if there’s an amendment or precedent. But also, the next SCOTUS bunch could over do it, see: Prohibition.

But anyway, your point was going through the state first. He went through Missouri because that’s wheee the claim was. He prob didn’t have the best lawyers as the money was with the salveholders :)

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme You don't seem to grasp legal situation in 1856, this was not an era of an all powerful federal goverment much-less its court. The court could only get away with what the federal and state governments were both willing and able to enforce.

They were still operating under a Constitutional system that largely required the consent of the governed. To this end it is legally possible for the Federal court insist upon slavery in the territories under the direct command of the Federal goverment, but not the States which had very little federal influence and a population that was generally quite hostile to the idea.

For Dredd Scot to even be defensible among any part of that population willing to enforce it it had to claim legitimacy of a federal law. In this case it rested upon the solid Legal idea that slaves were property.
A widely accepted concept even among the north, and that as such any federal law against slavery was nessarly taking that property from someone.

Again a widely accepted idea even today. As such the 5th amendment requirement for compensation is a very legitimate and real concern.
Even more important is whom this effected. The Abolitionist were mostly upset about Dredd Scott because it made outlawing slavery in the largely uninhabited U. S. Territories difficult, while also dashing their dreams of using federal law to end slavery everywhere.

Dreams that were really what threaten the union as they represented a direct death threat to the other half who still depended on slavery.

Letting a single slave go free because his owner choose to move to a free state is perfectly consistent and acceptable politically. Telling half the union they can't out law slavery even in their own state's would not even begin to fly, particularity if your doing so on the basis of nothing in the constitution.

[OddBeMe]

Sorry are you saying the Supremacy clause wasn’t a thing back then?

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme The supreme court wasn't treated as supreme over the constitution in the same way it is now back then.

Presidents and congresses were more willing to disagree with court edicts and refuse to help enforce them, as illustrated by several cases both before and after. This meant the court had to restrain itself to what it felt it could get away with.

If a court did in fact go so far as to order northern States enforce slavery laws, a president and congress would likely tell them to enforce it themselfs, along with those states. Practically speaking such laws would not be enforced at all in those states.

[OddBeMe]

1) it was
2) that’s not the supremacy clause. This is a clause (constantly attacked by sovereign citizens) that’s says federal is supreme over state law. But of course, like scotus always has been, judicially states can and do bring arguments to federal law. Making a balance of power.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
I was referring to the supreme court opinion of the constitution, the "supremacy clause" simply means State's can't overwrite the Federal Constitution.

That means nothing as the Federal constitution says nothing on the subject, which means technically the Federal court had no legitimate business being involved in the issue whatsoever. This is why Dredd Scot would have been freed if he simply went to Illinois and asserted the fact that his master took him there to live between 1830-1836 therefore forfeiting his masters claim to hold him in slavery.

The feds would have no jurisdiction in the case whatsoever, and politically the masters choose to completely disregard State law in 1830 when he bought Dredd Scott and carried him into Illinois leaves little room for him to claim he was wronged by the loss of that property which he knew he wasn't allowed to keep in Illinois.

[genericname85]

wait. are you saying that politicians are lying in order to get votes? wow. shocking news.

are you implying democrats aren't being lied to? sure hope not, cause that would be hella deluded.

[exitseven]

It really needs to be left up to the states. Republicans are pandering for the holy roller vote. There are so many more important things to worry about.

[boggboss]

At the end of the day most people don't vote for what u want but who u don't want in and both candidates are disliked

[Anonymous]

Repub voters are too brainwashed and stupid to know they have been lied to.

[Juxtapose]

There's nothing saying they can't make federal laws about it. That's what the abortion people originally wanted to do but instead they jammed it through the supreme court.

[ProbablyClueless]

Can you share the link to the original story?

[Thatpearl26]

I found it.
apnews.com/.../abortion-access-estrictions-house-republicans-mifepristone-0d4c0b1dedd9e7f7408ecc84899d5c16

[ProbablyClueless]

@Thatpearl26 Thank you for finding the story. I don't know why I hoped for rational thought out of OP... Nothing about this story says anything remotely close to "Republicans don't want the states to choose abortion rights."

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

The same way THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA DOES NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO COVE THEM UP. They just lie They do not care what you think

[Jerre]

We are used to the lies as long as Biden is President

[PurpleiPad]

I disagree! Biden is the worst liar on the planet. lol
Leaving Americans behind enemy lines in Afghanistan should have gotten him impeached. But the Republicans are pussies.

[LiamJHayden]

Politicians across the board lie to everyone while they lines their own pockets.

[LiamJHayden]

As for this specific issue, if this ever passes it will get tossed out by the federal courts, ironically as a violation of Dobbs.

[msc545]

As long as somebody restricts the murder of unborn children I don't care.

[Anonymous]

"Now federal congress are passing abortion limits."

Really? What federal limits have been passed?

[PurpleiPad]

It should be left to the states.

[goaded]

So you agree with last year's GOP, not this years?

[gothbxtch]

unfortunately they don’t seem to care