Legislative prediction

[Neveragain]

Same sex marriage will be used as leverage to ban abortions with the exception of rape and incest.

[drauz]

Same sex marriage will be used as leverage to ban abortions with the exception of rape and incest.

How would they go about making same sex marriage illegal? Pretty sure SCOTUS already said it's legal. You can't leverage something you can't do.

[Gelston]

Yeah, same sex marriage is through and done. Nothing short of an Amendment is rolling that back.

[Warriorbird]

With enough Supreme Court justices you can do just about anything. If Ryan manages to use Graham's Russia investigation to knock off Trump I'd find it more likely than if Trump serves out his term(s) however. Far more a priority to Pence.

[Gelston]

With enough Supreme Court justices you can do just about anything. If Ryan manages to use Graham's Russia investigation to knock off Trump I'd find it more likely than if Trump serves out his term(s) however. Far more a priority to Pence.

Doom and gloom liberal back again.

[Warriorbird]

Doom and gloom liberal back again.

You are aware I just mostly agreed with you? I doubt it'll happen unless we end up with Pence as President.

[Candor]

Same sex marriage will be used as leverage to ban abortions with the exception of rape and incest.

uh...no.

[drauz]

With enough Supreme Court justices you can do just about anything. If Ryan manages to use Graham's Russia investigation to knock off Trump I'd find it more likely than if Trump serves out his term(s) however. Far more a priority to Pence.

You would have to be a retard to make a bargain to keep a law that ANY lawyer could potentially bring to SCOTUS to allow a bill to pass in Congress. They aren't even remotely equivalent. That would have to be the worst negotiator in the history of deal making. It would be much more likely that they would put in their justices, get them to accept a case, rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional, and then still ban abortions.

I'll give you these magic beans for your house.

[Warriorbird]

You would have to be a retard to make a bargain to keep a law that ANY lawyer could potentially bring to SCOTUS to allow a bill to pass in Congress. They are even remotely equivalent. That would have to be the worst negotiator in the history of deal making. It would be much more likely that they would put in their justices, get them to accept a case, rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional, and then still ban abortions.

I'll give you these magic beans for your house.

I don't think any trading or bargains will happen other than to attempt to seat Supreme Court justices.

[drauz]

I don't think any trading or bargains will happen other than to attempt to seat Supreme Court justices.

I agree, Congress will pass what they want to pass. Probably some stuff the left won't like if for no other reason than a huge middle finger for the ACA.

[Warriorbird]

I agree, Congress will pass what they want to pass. Probably some stuff the left won't like if for no other reason than a huge middle finger for the ACA.

Eh. Rubio already did it in. I'd suspect that most Democratic legislators will secretly be good with that. Then they can run and talk about how terrible it was that it was removed.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Same sex marriage will be used as leverage to ban abortions with the exception of rape and incest.

If abortion is morally wrong and is "murder" than a rape or incest fetus deserves the same protection as any other fetus. That's literally the only morally consistent option. That being said, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere so we probably won't see any federal laws, just state laws.

[Parkbandit]

That would have to be the worst negotiator in the history of deal making.

He's a lame duck.. you don't have to rub it in.

Have some class.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Obama-Sad-Face.jpg

[ClydeR]

With enough Supreme Court justices you can do just about anything. If Ryan manages to use Graham's Russia investigation to knock off Trump I'd find it more likely than if Trump serves out his term(s) however. Far more a priority to Pence.

The probability today that same-sex marriage will be overturned by the Supreme Court is much higher than the probability was one year ago that Donald Trump would be elected President.

There will certainly be cases about this issue before the Supreme Court. There are cases in lower courts right now about collateral issues relating to same-sex marriage. The bakers and florists who have been sued under city and state civil rights laws claim that same-sex "marriages" are not real marriages and that they have a right to refuse services related to same-sex marriages. When one of those cases reaches the Supreme Court, the court could decide the issues narrowly or they go further and say that the earlier decision legalizing same-sex marriage was wrongly decided. It would not be the first time that the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the issue of same-sex relationships. In 1986 the Supreme Court said it is okay for states to make homosexual sex a crime. In 2003, because of changes in the judges on the court, they reversed that decision. The same thing could happen with same-sex marriage. Or a newly constituted court could just overturn the 2003 criminal decision. That would be a lot simpler.


Lawsuits stemming from individual merchants' refusal to participate in same-sex nuptials continue to move through state and federal courts. The most prominent cases involve a Colorado "cake artist," Washington state florist and wedding venues in Illinois and New York.

More... (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/29/gay-lesbian-transgender-religious-exemption-supreme-court-north-carolina/84908172/)



I doubt it'll happen unless we end up with Pence as President.

Social liberals should pray for Trump's good health.

[Wrathbringer]

The probability today that same-sex marriage will be overturned by the Supreme Court is much higher than the probability was one year ago that Donald Trump would be elected President.

There will certainly be cases about this issue before the Supreme Court. There are cases in lower courts right now about collateral issues relating to same-sex marriage. The bakers and florists who have been sued under city and state civil rights laws claim that same-sex "marriages" are not real marriages and that they have a right to refuse services related to same-sex marriages. When one of those cases reaches the Supreme Court, the court could decide the issues narrowly or they go further and say that the earlier decision legalizing same-sex marriage was wrongly decided. It would not be the first time that the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the issue of same-sex relationships. In 1986 the Supreme Court said it is okay for states to make homosexual sex a crime. In 2003, because of changes in the judges on the court, they reversed that decision. The same thing could happen with same-sex marriage. Or a newly constituted court could just overturn the 2003 criminal decision. That would be a lot simpler.






Social liberals should pray for Trump's good health.

Are you scared, Clyder? Do you need a safe space and some play doh?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If abortion is morally wrong and is "murder" than a rape or incest fetus deserves the same protection as any other fetus. That's literally the only morally consistent option. That being said, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere so we probably won't see any federal laws, just state laws.

I think it's quite ridiculous that murdering a pregnant woman is two or more counts of murder, yet abortion is legal. To your point, the law should at the very least agree with itself, regardless of which side of the fence you are on regarding abortion.

I'm pro choice for what its worth, even though I think abortion is a terrible thing.

[Neveragain]

If abortion is morally wrong and is "murder" than a rape or incest fetus deserves the same protection as any other fetus. That's literally the only morally consistent option. That being said, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere so we probably won't see any federal laws, just state laws.

I'm suggesting what I think may happen, not my personal thoughts on the topic. I promise you are going to see a huge push for it over the next two years.

[Thondalar]

I think it's quite ridiculous that murdering a pregnant woman is two or more counts of murder, yet abortion is legal. To your point, the law should at the very least agree with itself, regardless of which side of the fence you are on regarding abortion.

I'm pro choice for what its worth, even though I think abortion is a terrible thing.


Agree 100%.

I've stated this exact thing several times over the last few years, though, so no surprise there. I'm completely and totally pro-choice. But call it what it is. And don't support that form of state-sanctioned murder and then whine about the death penalty.

Principle doesn't change.

[Parkbandit]

Agree 100%.

I've stated this exact thing several times over the last few years, though, so no surprise there. I'm completely and totally pro-choice. But call it what it is. And don't support that form of state-sanctioned murder and then whine about the death penalty.

Principle doesn't change.

I have no problem with someone being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

The anti-abortion comes from protection of the innocent. Those babies didn't do anything wrong, they were just an inconvenience.

[Tenlaar]

Those babies didn't do anything wrong

Neither did the 150+ people who have now been exonerated and freed from death sentences. It is undeniable that innocent people are sentenced to death.

[Parkbandit]

Neither did the 150+ people who have now been exonerated and freed from death sentences. It is undeniable that innocent people are sentenced to death.

I agree. I would be in favor of using the death penalty only for those who have undisputed evidence to their guilt.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I agree. I would be in favor of using the death penalty only for those who have undisputed evidence to their guilt.

I'm in favor for white collar crime. If you rob 2000 people of their pension, retirement, and jobs because you were embezzling or whatever, you deserve to fry IMO. A person like that has caused more damage, heartache, and problems than even a serial killer. They should be treated accordingly.

[Parkbandit]

I'm in favor for white collar crime. If you rob 2000 people of their pension, retirement, and jobs because you were embezzling or whatever, you deserve to fry IMO. A person like that has caused more damage, heartache, and problems than even a serial killer. They should be treated accordingly.

http://i.imgur.com/1uf27Y7.gif

[Gelston]

I think we should execute all the drug offenders.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

http://i.imgur.com/1uf27Y7.gif

I am actually dead serious, haha.

The people who fuck over our society, lets roast them. Just the same way I think the only cure for pedophilia is a bullet to the head.

Um.... not really in agreement with Gelston on drug addicts... but am I fucking terrible that I get why a person would feel that way?

You are more than welcome to try to change my mind though.

[Gelston]

I am actually dead serious, haha.

The people who fuck over our society, lets roast them. Just the same way I think the only cure for pedophilia is a bullet to the head.

Um.... not really in agreement with Gelston on drug addicts... but am I fucking terrible that I get why a person would feel that way?

You are more than welcome to try to change my mind though.

Addicts? Pft. Using my penalties you'd never be alive long enough to become an addict.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Addicts? Pft. Using my penalties you'd never be alive long enough to become an addict.

Explain yourself.

You mean like.. dealers and cartel people? In which case OH HELL YES.

[Androidpk]

I think we should execute all the drug offenders.

start with yourself

[Gelston]

Explain yourself.

You mean like.. dealers and cartel people? In which case OH HELL YES.

Pft, they'd be out of a job. In all seriousness though, I wouldn't be completely against cartel leaders facing the death penalty, but I think a lot of them could be put down for murder too.


start with yourself

I'm not a drug offender. Never have been.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not a drug offender. Never have been.

Psst: Alcohol is a drug :(

[Gelston]

Psst: Alcohol is a drug :(

I said offender. Alcohol is legal, so it's use isn't an offense.

[Warriorbird]

I said offender. Alcohol is legal, so it's use isn't an offense.

Depends on how you use the alcohol!

[Parkbandit]

I said offender. Alcohol is legal, so it's use isn't an offense.

I've tried to read some of your drunken posts.. I would say it's very offensive in some cases...

[Tenlaar]

I agree. I would be in favor of using the death penalty only for those who have undisputed evidence to their guilt.

You mean like the evidence that was strong enough to convict the 150+ people who were then later exonerated, or...?

[ClydeR]

I agree. I would be in favor of using the death penalty only for those who have undisputed evidence to their guilt.

If we followed your rule, the only time the state would ever impose the death penalty is if the accused did not deny guilt. If the accused denied committing the crime, then the evidence would be disputed.

[Latrinsorm]

If we followed your rule, the only time the state would ever impose the death penalty is if the accused did not deny guilt. If the accused denied committing the crime, then the evidence would be disputed.I would also point out that people have confessed to capital crimes that it turns out they did not commit. We should always remember that the purpose of interrogation is not to get someone to say the truth but something they don't want to say.