All accepted registrations through July 14 at 7:30a ET have been activated. Thank you! -M.W.

Please note: Terms of Use have been amended effective June 9, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=30571

All user accounts that have been inactive since January 1, 2017 have been expunged. If you are one of these users and wish to submit a new post, please re-register. Thank you.

Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

The classic Political Potpourri forum is back by popular demand! ~SEPARATE REGISTRATION IS NO LONGER NEEDED; ALL REGISTERED BUZZBOARD USERS ARE WELCOME TO POST!~ Be forwarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

Post by Bryce » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:26 pm

Nessel, the state's top law enforcement officer, pledged to ignore an existing state law banning abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a scenario she said is now “likely” because of new justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 487903002/

Shouldn't the State's top law enforcement officer be expected to enforce all laws set in place by the legislature if she agrees with them or not?

An agenda driven law enforcement officer is a dangerous thing.


If you have a really big butt, can you get away with doing things half-assed?

Matt
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

Post by Matt » Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:59 pm

Bryce wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:26 pm
Nessel, the state's top law enforcement officer, pledged to ignore an existing state law banning abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a scenario she said is now “likely” because of new justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 487903002/

Shouldn't the State's top law enforcement officer be expected to enforce all laws set in place by the legislature if she agrees with them or not?

An agenda driven law enforcement officer is a dangerous thing.
First off, this is pandering in the worst definition of the word. There is no indication that the SCOTUS is taking up an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. If she's going to continue to pick and choose which laws she likes rather than upholding the oath to support both the US and state constitution, then it is clear she is unfit for duty and should resign or a recall effort should begin in January 2020.



Deleted User 8570

Re: Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:41 pm

Matt wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:59 pm
Bryce wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:26 pm
Nessel, the state's top law enforcement officer, pledged to ignore an existing state law banning abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a scenario she said is now “likely” because of new justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 487903002/

Shouldn't the State's top law enforcement officer be expected to enforce all laws set in place by the legislature if she agrees with them or not?

An agenda driven law enforcement officer is a dangerous thing.
First off, this is pandering in the worst definition of the word. There is no indication that the SCOTUS is taking up an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. If she's going to continue to pick and choose which laws she likes rather than upholding the oath to support both the US and state constitution, then it is clear she is unfit for duty and should resign or a recall effort should begin in January 2020.
There are several working their way through the lower courts and the Supreme Court is likely to take at least one of them up in the next year or so... where have you been?



Matt
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

Post by Matt » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:06 pm

NS8401 wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:41 pm
Matt wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:59 pm
Bryce wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:26 pm
Nessel, the state's top law enforcement officer, pledged to ignore an existing state law banning abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a scenario she said is now “likely” because of new justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 487903002/

Shouldn't the State's top law enforcement officer be expected to enforce all laws set in place by the legislature if she agrees with them or not?

An agenda driven law enforcement officer is a dangerous thing.
First off, this is pandering in the worst definition of the word. There is no indication that the SCOTUS is taking up an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. If she's going to continue to pick and choose which laws she likes rather than upholding the oath to support both the US and state constitution, then it is clear she is unfit for duty and should resign or a recall effort should begin in January 2020.
There are several working their way through the lower courts and the Supreme Court is likely to take at least one of them up in the next year or so... where have you been?
How do you know that 1) the SCOTUS will take any of the cases, and 2) the SCOTUS will make the right constitutional call and reverse a decision that had no basis in the constitution?

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think the targets would be doctors who would be breaking the law.



Deleted User 8570

Re: Shouldn't Be Able To Pick And Choose

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:26 pm

Matt wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:06 pm
NS8401 wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:41 pm
Matt wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:59 pm
Bryce wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:26 pm
Nessel, the state's top law enforcement officer, pledged to ignore an existing state law banning abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a scenario she said is now “likely” because of new justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 487903002/

Shouldn't the State's top law enforcement officer be expected to enforce all laws set in place by the legislature if she agrees with them or not?

An agenda driven law enforcement officer is a dangerous thing.
First off, this is pandering in the worst definition of the word. There is no indication that the SCOTUS is taking up an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. If she's going to continue to pick and choose which laws she likes rather than upholding the oath to support both the US and state constitution, then it is clear she is unfit for duty and should resign or a recall effort should begin in January 2020.
There are several working their way through the lower courts and the Supreme Court is likely to take at least one of them up in the next year or so... where have you been?
How do you know that 1) the SCOTUS will take any of the cases, and 2) the SCOTUS will make the right constitutional call and reverse a decision that had no basis in the constitution?

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think the targets would be doctors who would be breaking the law.
That was part of the point in holding out until after the 2016 election to replace Scalia and part of he adulation on the right when a second seat opened up for Kavanaugh... folks on the right have expectations that a case will be sent that far and heard and Roe will be overturned.... that’s what folks on both sides expect... it’s been talked about on both sides since Kavanaugh was confirmed...



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic