[Michael] First; the tribunal is the Supreme Court. Laws can no longer be made that do not follow the adjudicated legal stipulations and precedents emanating from R. v. W. The SC is not elected, it is appointed, and then for life. We have nine people deciding how all of American Society *must* act with respect to abortion. That is a tribunal.
[Krimel] My God man don't they teach civics in Sunday School? Laws cannot be passed which violate the constitution. ... Roe v Wade does not decide how anyone *must* act. [Arlo] Not only this, by the same "logic" any law that would protect my right to consume beer would be, according to Michael, a tribunal deciding how I must act with respect to beer. If you think that's a bad thing, because it restricts YOU from deciding whether or not *I* should be legally allowed to choose to drink beer... well... [Krimel] This is entirely disingenuous. You began by asking how the MoQ would apply to abortion. Most people replied by looking specifically at how an individual woman might use it as a guide in making a personal decision. But no one doubted where this was heading. [Arlo] Aye. This was pretty apparent considering it began fresh on the heels of "theism" and "faith". When my response was dissected into basically "I agree with you whenever you say the MOQ would view this as immoral" and "You don't know what you're talking about whenever you say that MOQ would view this as moral", I saw the writing on the wall. That's why I bowed out. You have more patience that I to respond to the rest of the right-wing talking points here. I mean, when I see "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism", its time to pick up and move on. Nowhere to go from there at all except a long spiral down. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
