Wrong Weatherwax

Super. Be so kind as to demonstrate the differences between a State Legislature and the Federal here?

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...9&context=ealr

Again, you miss the point that all of these issues act as a part of legislative record, intent of law is considered to be given primacy in any legal holding in these matters, important when considered in the pursuit of repeal, especially as they align with State and Federal Supreme Courts.

And while you are marginally technically correct that the Federal and State courts don't repeal laws, challenges striking laws rely considerably on the intent of the laws and their Constitutionality based on the Constitution and any relevant case law therein. Enshrinement is always, therefore a part of any motion to strike down a law, or rather reverse decisions based on the law if the findings are not in keeping. Obligation isn't a factor, relative research for standing is. Again, the idea that enshrinement is at stake isn't frankly the issue.

And again, you are being very careful to skirt around the issue here, focusing primarily on the legal aspect while ignoring the overall point of the argument, mainly that these laws act as a part of the legislative record, and because they act as a part of the legislative record and if challenged, or repealed through other legislative action that builds a case against.

Put it this way. If I create a law that says red people are illegal and in opposition someone adds an amendment that blue people are illegal they share a common standing based on the legislative record, rather than intent and justification making red people illegal would be steeped in the same sort of justification for making blue people illegal. If the red people, those in power got upset by this and struck down the legal standing of the argument, the standing for keeping the blue people illegal is greatly weakened. That is the intent of laws like this, to lure justification of one particular set of arguments into equivalency.

Its a political ploy, but one that relies on a strong legislative record as backing. So yes, because the legislative record is an official and required document, enshrinement becomes automatic. In arguing the cases before the courts, enshrinement doesn't occur as a part of the direct record nor is it an obligation to enter into the courts arguments, however, this is a misnomer because standing and holding still incorporate intent of the legislature as a part of the process.

If you can't see the nuance, then I really can't help you.

I figured this addition might clarify.... same link

__________________
An education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. -Terry Pratchett

Darnk Yun

Well played m'lady!

__________________
Ahaha, such a simpleton. It'z so much fun playing jokez on you. I waz only here to see how she waz doing, but I had fun while I waz at it. So long, Sere, au revoir, mon ami! Pleaze dream of moi every night! Oui! ~ Harle

http://leechmouth.deviantart.com/

livia

Not homophobic, nor a personal attack.
Homophobic and a personal attack.

It's homophobic to dish back to Joshua exactly the kind of insult Joshua dishes out first? Have I got that right?

Joshua Nightshade

Questioning your real life gender on an internet forum because you support misogyny is a bit removed from you repeatedly going on and on about what an effeminate princess diva you think I am because I disagree with you.

ETA: And because you have demonstrated in the past a difficulty with understanding context and a willingness to remove things from it to deliberately falsify a chain of events, this was my first message to you and your first reply prior to me calling you an idiot:

So, in your words, me calling you an idiot was simply me dishing back to you exactly the kind of insult you dished first.

__________________

Darnk Yun

He said your a dude, not prince dick wiggler.

and accusing a gay man of acting like a princess diva kinda comes off as homophobic bro dude.

What's the male version of Diva? HMMMMmmmmm....

Amity Slade

It would be rather pleasant if everyone stopped making personal attacks on each other, rather than debating whose personal attacks are least inappropriate.

Asher Bertrand

I think this pretty well sums up how a lot of women in America are feeling these days.

__________________

Void

it is when they (like you) have no contextual understanding of the topic, and ignore it when it's presented.

may I remind you of your own words....
and because I've despise repeating myself when there is such a clear inability to recognize your own words, let alone all other facts that have been demonstrated to you (except one), I'm invoking three strikes law: ie, you're out.

I'll leave you with this final thought to consider alone by yourself:
One should never become so attached to an initial position that one fails to consider any evidence along the way. One's own opinion is never evidence of anything, only the facts that support it are.

__________________
- These eyes can do more than see

Innula Zenovka

Apparently, I wonder if equivalent statistics are available for the USA.

__________________

Asher Bertrand

The figure I've heard used is that 99 percent of sexually active women in the US use some form of birth control at some point in their life. I don't know if that includes the "rhythm" method, too.

Aribeth Zelin

What bothers me about all the anti-BC laws is they seem purposefully worded to exclude male contraceptives. Which in turns says 'Women, you don't get a choice, only us men do' and that's even worse, because when you look at that, you KNOW its not about making babies, but forcing women to have them.

Also, no one can even get southern rural men to get their male dogs fixed, you aren't going to get them to get themselves fixed [yes, its a real problem, apparently there is some relationship to your dog's virility and you own O.o]

__________________
Faerycat Designs In World -Marketplace 1- Marketplace 2

Kokoro Fasching

livia

Nice strawman, but I've never said anything about you being effeminate. You introduced that doozy, deciding that it's fine for you to imply that certain undesirable traits are exclusively feminine while pretending to be a champion against mysogony. It's interesting that you accused somone else of being a mysogynist while pretending to champion against it. Did that particular hypocritical attack come into your mind while you were looking in a mirror?

You really will use any excuse when it comes to your sense of entitlement and desire for special treatment. It's unfortunate others enable this, because it does nothing to help you be more mindful. Are you now going to claim that being called self entitled and childish is also calling your effeminate? Or is that too blatent and transparent even for you?

Which part of that is untrue?

Of course your implied implication here is that these are all feminine traits, and you've enough nerve to imply that while pretending to be a champion against the world's mysognynists? Only girls and women are melodramatic Joshua? Only girls and women are hysterical Joshua? How very non-mysogynistic of you.

I don't genderize my insults. I do not alter that behaviour-choice based on the sexuality of who it is directed at. You think only girls and women have certain undesirable traits and you expect different treatment because of your sexuality. This naturally makes me a mysogynist and a homophobe rather than making your a mysogynist who trades on their sexuality for special treatment.

I see what you did there. I see what you do around here on a daily basis. The target of your conduct may change, but you just keep trucking on. "Trucking on" is not an insult accusing you of being butch by the way, just in case you were confused on that count.


You keep telling yourself that.

And since you love context so much, here's your earlier post to me, and notably, I had not said so much as a word to you in months prior to it:
What part of accusing someone of having a conniption fit and hyperventilating because they posted on an internet forum is not melodramatic?

Having a hyperventilation fit and conniptions is melodramatic and hysterical. So the return accusation that you were being melodramatic and hysterical derives directly from, and exactly mirrors the personal attack you launched. I even mimicked your presentation just to make it clear and obvious.

The interesting part is that if these are feminine traits in your mind, then that defines your intial personal attack against me as mysogynistic, but I'm sure you'll ignore that because it does not fit with your victim narrative. And before you go there, it's mysogynistic to claim that having a victimhood mentality is effeminate. Men are just as capable of being crappy self entitled behaviour as women.

Now I have to go read the inbox message I have about falling into your homophobia trap, because it's not the first time you've pulled this crap, and your bullying obviously has had the desired effect with at least some posters who you've intimidated into not discussing your conduct where you can bully them some more for it. I guess reading about you in my in box makes a change from reading about you and your persistent bullying on external websites.

Darnk Yun

Lol

Joshua Nightshade

You're a total jackass.

And since I'm sure Lias was the one who PM'd you I can't say I'm at all surprised; you two can be victims together!

Asher Bertrand

A diva is a word for a female opera singer. I don't know how you can get more gender specific than that.

detrius

The keyword is 'seems'.

__________________

detrius

Holy catchphrase, Batman, what a train wreck of a thread.

livia

It's odd you say enshrinement is not the issue here because that's exactly the phrase that issue was taken with in the post replying to me.

As to "marginally technically correct", I'm completely correct on that point and your attempts to argue otherwise rely entirely on technicalities that miss the point.

The point is that litigation before the Supreme Court, of issues pertaining to abortion, at this time, would pose a real risk to the existing protections derived from Roe v Wade. There'd be nothing to worry about otherwise, since the war on women has either already been decided by Roe v Wade, or there is a real risk that Roe v Wade is not sufficient protection against these legislative sallies.

To spell it out for you in a step by step process, entailing repealing the law:
1) the bluff is called by the war wagers and they allow a law to pass that interferes in the privacy of men on the basis of a public health concern. Since this law was initiated by Democrats and it is anethema to their usual support base, and would probably be very off putting to swing voters, the war wagers are able to reap the rewards and gain control of both legislative houses and the Presidency. Arguments for both viagra "invasive" and abortion "invasive" laws exist in the legislative record accordingly.

2) litigation before the Surpreme Court (which now include Bush appointees) ends in a ruling that relies on distinguishing these new laws from the case heard in Roe v Wade and a gives a contrary ruling that does not follow Roe v Wade.

3) a rider is attached to an entirely irrelevant law, for instance a law about what can be sold as "ground beef". None of the war wagers enter any argumentation about this repeal into the legislative record which then only contains arguments about retaining it entered by the resistance legislators.

4) the war is won.

Alternatively, and more likely, and since you are such a fan of nuance:

Step 1 occurs. At step 2, for laws directed at women, Roe v Wade is departed from and Jacobson v Massachusetts is followed, relying on the nuance that the decision in Roe v Wade relied in part on refusing to accept that an unborn, genetically human entity has legal personhood, and the fact that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, while excluding its punitive provisions from being applied in the instance of abortion, none the less legislatively established legal personhood for unborn, genetically human entities.

At the same time, "viagra laws" are struck down as unconstitutional, following Roe v Wade.


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is very likely the intended vehicle for slipping past Roe v Wade, and these viagra stunts offer no protection against that means of short running around Roe v Wade while themselves being unconstitutional because of Roe v Wade.

Wrong Weatherwax

So, simply put, your entire argument rests on scary Bush appointees? That's not exactly a realistic assessment of the situation, but as I noted before, if you can't get it, then I really can't help you.

Its funny that instead of focusing on the issue, you bring a completely unrelated issue here, namely personhood to make your arguments for you. Are these laws intended to address the question of conception and humanity, no its hinged entirely on privacy issue rights in line with Roe v Wade, something any first year law student would be able to point out.

Keep on trucking Livia. That's the second attempt to shift the topic, I'm done with you.

livia

I've never heard of Lias. But I can conclude from your assumption that this Lias person is yet another person you've pulled this crap with.

You and I both know that the monotonous regularity with which you bully people and then play the victim card makes the odds of you guessing who IMed me a very long shot indeed. So good luck with that.

Joshua Nightshade

Lias = bladyblue, and I'm going to go out on a total limb on that point since she's mashing emoticon buttons on all your obnoxious twit posts.

The only bully in this thread is you, which would be why the only person in the thread told by the site owner to stop doing something is also you. In any event it's immaterial, "I have loads of secret messages from people who say you suck" is an argument played by a coward, rooted in cowardice. It's irrelevant whether you do or not because ultimately high school students passing notes in secret and cackling to one another because they lack the spines to say anything directly isn't going to change my opinion of someone or move me to post differently. If anything you engaging in that sort of immaturity only underscores what a ridiculous individual you actually are. Talk about a bully.

Karen

Now Arizona,
"PHOENIX (AP) — Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy."
Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control - Yahoo! News