She asked him a tough question and that's being abusive? You're just use to his interviews on Newsmax and Hannity when they ask him "why is he so perfect".
Walk through that:
She didn't even ask him a question she just started being belligerent from the get-go. I watched the whole interview. She was incredibly inappropriate. She didn't ask a tough question. She didn't ask any question. She just started being belligerent. Completely out of line. ...
I buy that the majority of americans believe, if we were presented a bill on removing abortion - he would sign it.
New poll shows majority believe Trump would sign a national abortion ban
Fifty-five percent of respondents overall said if Congress passed a national abortion ban, they think Trump would sign it into law.wisconsinindependent.com
Republicans receive nightmare polling news
A new poll has shed light on Americans' views on abortion and other issues.www.newsweek.com
Agreed. No reason to do it. I could care less that her father was Jamaican.
She repeated what HE said and what HE did. She then asked how can black voters trust you with that history, is that not a question?
That is exactly what she did. She said, "why should black voters trust you when you said....a, b, c...".
She did not start the interview off that way, she got on the soapbox and kept talking and being belligerent. And then when she did ask a question, she never gave him a chance to answer it. She just talked right over ...
HAHAHA. It's totally true. She definitely coming with some bland ... potato salad. Me too.
Roe was bad case law based on perjured testimony and a mythical right to privacy, that's why it got overturned. They had 50 years to make an actual law and they didn't.
I remember when Twitter deplatformed Trump in early 2021, a certain poster here said what's the big deal? He deserved it!
Roe v Wade and Casey v PP were both overturned due to both being completely disconnected from the Constitution. Any American who supports the Constitution should applaud the ruling for that reason alone.
She should come at him hard. He doesn't get those questions on Fox or Newsmax. I think Kamala should get tough questions too. I don't care for ass kissing interviews.
It was bad case law but it was 50 years of law. They should've left it alone but here we are...
This.
Abortion is NOT important to me...but you are missing the point here I believe. I DO have a problem as a tax payer PAYING for peoples abortions. FEDERALLY paid for abortions. Secondly...As an American that understands what a Constitutional Republic is...I am ALL IN for states making their own rules, so I will NEVER support a Federal law. And I fully disagree with anyone who believes it will be a federal law again. It is EXACTLY where it should be..with the states. This is a battle where neither side is going to get everything they want. So with the states solves this. Do not like Florida's laws? MOVE. Move to a snowflake state. and BTW...even RBG admitted R vs W was not a good bill.
They did and they all claimed that a president doesn't have immunity. That's why we need major SCOTUS reform. We can't have unelected individuals lying to the people to get a lifetime position. If we could vote them out, that would be one thing but we can't.
There is potentially some merit to a term limit to SC Justices. 18 years is a long time in any one role. I do like the notion of every 2 years a new one gets voted in. Ethics reform is needed in the House, Senate and Supreme Court.
Paying for abortions is a COMPLETELY different issue. Deeply against that unless it is for the life of the mother. Why? Don't use my tax dollars to fund another person's choice.
I'm 100% for ethic reform and it is needed badly. I like your ideas with the courts. I just think that we outgrew the current model. The constitution only calls for a lifetime appointment. Congress can definitely add some fair new concepts and rules like every president gets a justice and/or a panel instead of all of the justices, like they do in lower courts.
RGB didn't like the amendment it was ruled on, she suggested another amendment. She believed that abortion shouldn't be left to the states. She suggested that it get affirmed under a different amendment to end the right challenges.
www.bbc.com
Good article. Implicit in it is that it was not properly reasoned.RGB didn't like the amendment it was ruled on, she suggested another amendment. She believed that abortion shouldn't be left to the states. She suggested that it get affirmed under a different amendment to end the right challenges.
She believed that the Roe v Wade case had based the right to abortion on the wrong argument, a violation of a woman's privacy rather than on gender equality. This, she thought, left the ruling vulnerable to targeted legal attacks by anti-abortion activists.
In History: How Ruth Bader Ginsburg foresaw the threat to abortion access in the US
In one of her final interviews, the Supreme Court justice and women's rights pioneer predicted that US abortion rights could be revoked and warned the poorest would pay the price
What changed is the SC heard a case that challenged Roe v Wade and Casey v PP.
Changes to lifetime appointments of SC justices requires a Constitutional Amendment.
