fauxlaw

was? nope. not even yet

You could have stopped there. Biden has so much power he can blow lightning bolts out his arse.

Said of Biden, I presume. Funny. I don't see where with the U.S. Constitution, nor State Legislation, define the media as the source to declare the winner. Nice wish balloon.

And the Trump team has already started filing impropriety lawsuits, and the Supreme Court has already weighed-in on one PA impropriety, with more to follow. The head of the snake is identified and targeted. Stay tuned.

But, as I have been asking for months, if Joe Biden is elected, who will be the President?

Hidin' Biden said he wanted to speak to the nation tonight. Didn't happen. What happened? Did Wilmington have a brownout, so the basement teleprompter was a no-show? Did SloJoe forget the Pledge of Allegiance again? Was Jill in a Friday night coffee-clutch, and couldn't be there to hold him up?

No. All good excuses that can still be used, but, tonight, it was a question that nailed him to the phone: "How many votes do I need in these States, and when are they going to be manufactured." Answer: "Sorry Mr. Vice, but they're on a slow boat from China."

I ask the "nothing" crowd to explain to me why, in the entire history of the "science" model that seems to have abandoned the idea of divine design of the universe simply because we can explain so much more about it than could our ancestral scientists who reached barriers ad could not cross them without offering the explanation of a divine fallacy, or "god of the gaps." Here's my request:

tell me when in the history of natural selection did nature, by itself, construct an edifice to provide a residence of warmth and comfort using a process of manipulation of raw materials such that those raw materials were physically altered, and combined with other raw materials doing the same thing, processed to accommodate a natural design? Darwin never saw it, never described it, never envisioned it. Nor did any natural collection of elements of the Big Bang, the String, Steady-State, Oscillating, Flat Hologram, etc, but one.

You should be. Prop 16 would have repealed a current constitutional provision that made it unlawful for California's state and local governments to discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, ethnicity, national origin or sex. Prop 16 wold return racial quotas. I thought Progressives opposed such matters. I'm involved in a debate right now that argues against such stuff. But, I'll wager you're upset. Take a read from the following website if the Sanders Institute: https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/towards-a-socialist-theory-of-racism

If the word "subsume" escapes you, look it up. Note, too, in this Institute, it's leading members. Some faces should be familiar. Yes, if you are a true Progressive, the defeat of this Proposition should worry you, but, I'll bet it doesn't, because you don't really understand what Progressive really is, just as you don't understand what Biden means by raising your taxes by repeal of the TaxCuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

It is true, as Tradesecret advised [apparently in another string, that John the Baptist performed no miracles [See John 11: 41], but producing signs was not the Baptist's calling. His calling was to announce the coming of the Messiah, and, in fact, flatly denied that was his title '...I am not the Christ" [John 1: 20] when others asked him. John recognized Jesus when he came to John at the Jordan River, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." [John 1: 29] So, the separate missions of the Baptist and the Christ are documented well enough.

As for Herod's fearful reaction, he acknowledges that he had the Baptist's head severed from the body, clearly ending his life. Thereupon witnessing [by, as yet, word from others] of the doings of Jesus, miracles  he apparently expected the Baptist might have been capable of performing, but no one else in his experience, Herod would plausibly assume the Baptist was risen from the dead. Let's recall that many assumed the Baptist was the Messiah [John 1: -- documents this rumor well enough]. Herod no doubt heard these whispers of John's potential powers, including, apparently, the ability to rise from the dead, and so is ascribing these miracles now performed by Jesus, whom Herod has never met, and does not yet acknowledge, as being performed by the risen John the Baptist.

What makes you think communism is the reflection of perfection? That if/then is entirely wrong. It is not a matter of if. Man has the capacity to become perfect. Why would there be a commandment to become perfect if it were not possible to accomplish. Matthew 5 begins the great Sermon on the Mount, which extends two more chapters. Take note of the last verse of Matthew 5. "Be ye therefore perfect..." Only personally imposed limitation prevents it. Limtation of each solitary individual. It is an individual responsibility. But communism eradicates the individual in favor of the state, and that's nonsense. Therefore, the condition of you if/then is also fallacious.

"...it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce." That is a virtual duplicate sentiment, and origin of Oba'a, who said "There comes a time when you have made enough money." Both sentiments decry the progress of innovation, industry, and independence and favor a the state. It is the innovation, industry, and independence of the individual that succeeds to the degree that an individual becomes perfect, ultimately. No, no one among us has yet reached that lofty deal, but that is not because the potential is not there, and communism, because it battles those three ideal conditions, individuality of innovation, industry, and independence. Therefore, communism is the bastion of an imperfect system. Money is not an objective, as progressives, socialists, and communists believe, and rail against, as you do, but merely a vehicle to achieve innovation, industry, and independence.

ACB's confirmation was not close to being rushed. Her nomination to confirmation was in 30 days. In history, since 1789, when Justices were first seated, 84 seats have been filled in under 30 days, and 24 seated in over 30 days. Clearly, more Justices have been seated in less time than ACB, by nearly 3x. In addition, relative to Merrick, he and 37 other nominations in histopry have not been confirmed, so he is no anomoly, either, even during a presidential election year [8 of the 237 were in an election year.

Of course Trump said he wants Re overturned. Doesn't mean it will happen. Remember, he 's in a political roe and he does not run the Judciary. Don't expect Trump to not act like a politician.

Your issue is with the States. It is the States which ultimately decide their handling of abortion particulars. There is no federal law in that regard.

No, you become perfect, first; then you do not need rules. That is what Madison said. He did not say you eliminate the rules, and the result is angelic. Now THAT is what does not make sense.

Sure, but all of that depends on legislation controlling behavior. When has that ever been successful? The fact of the matter is, democracy and liberty are hard philosophies, which is why people end up abandoning the effort for totalitarianism. But if it was easy, would it be worth it? No. The whole idea of democracy and liberty is to convince people that their rights end at another's nose, having no care for one's station in life. All deserve that consideration and moderation. We're not there, yet. But "controlling" legislation is just another word for totalitarianism, isn't it?

James Madison once said that if men were angels, we would not need government. Do you think angels become angels by control? Nope. We become angels by embracing the rules of liberty and granting them to everybody else. So, why not seek to become angels rather than trying to control everybody? You may argue that's impossible. And that arguement is accepting limitation. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What about just trying to be angels?

Then bishop and apostle are interchangeable terms

Then the 70, also being apostles, are also bishops.

Then this third statement disputes the second...

and this fourth statement disputes the first...

Do you see my confusion? I understand your intent, as in some bishops could become apostles, and some 70 could become bishops, but these ordinations to these offices were not a matter of elevation only by seniority, but by merit and need. Do I interpret you correctly? But I believe apostles are apostles, bishops are bishops, the 70 are the 70, and the separate groups hold distinctly different, necessary offices and purposes in the church. But "70," as a number, is not to be understood in ancient Hebrew or Greek as only a literal number, but also signifying "many more than necessary to count," as in Christ's admonition to us to forgive "7 times 70;" in other words, as many times as it takes. There's the count of the 70 - as many as necessary.

Stephen's #4 gives a Google definition of "superbatural." As usual, any other English dictionary but the OED falls short. As it happens, the word originates in antiquity of Latin and French, seeing its use in English originating in an absolute knowledge as of 1443, but perhaps as early as 1425, having a relation to divine, as well as occult and paranormal works beyond, or at least different from, and additional to those of nature, Here is OED's definition:

"Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; occult, paranormal."

Myopia is alive and well. Tell me where the Constitution requires Congress to investigate their navel lint, or anything else. Show me where the 1A says "separation of church and state."  Show me the Constitution's enumeration of "separation of powers." Go ahead. Show me. As I told RM, the founding fathers expected us to think and research. We didn't have to be led by the nose in every single little thing over which you get a burr up your ass.

Get this straight. Your "gun control" is not elimination of weapons. You have state laws in every state allowing the use of weapons, and even the personal manufacture of them in many states. Get over it. You eliminate guns, you think that stops killing? I can kill with my thumb. Do you start cutting them off? Use your head. PEOPLE kill people. They use any number of weapons to do it, including tools not ever made to be weapons. Controlling them all is a cat's cradle. Good luck with that.

Progressives are an interesting lot. Since they fail at every turn to amend the Constitution [take a guess at how many amendments they have proposed since Woodrow Wilson], they simply ignore it. Like declaring the 2A null and void because we no longer need a militia. You claim birthright citizenship, ignoring "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14A, section 1. Might begin hearing that Article II is now null and void because we don't need a President. That's coming 2021.  You elect Joe Biden, that will become a prog mantra. Mark my words.

The National Guard is a militia, as I cited in my #23: 10 U.S.C. § 246

Do a little research. That's what history's for.

James? Peter? If it's James, then why is Peter told, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." But you don't have that correctly understood, either. What were Christ and Peter and the other Apostles just talking about in that little interlude? [Matthew 16: - ] they were talking about who people were saying Jesus is. Some say... and name several different prophets. "Whom say ye that I am?" Peter replies, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter is commonly understood to the "this rock," given Greek for "rock." But what has Christ just said? That flesh and blood is not the origin of Peter's knowledge, nor is an ordinary rock, but that it has been revealed to Peter direct from God, the Father, by revelation. That is the rock: revelation. Communication direct from God. Jesus tells Peter who he is, and that he, a mortal man, is recipient of revelation from God. Revelation will be the means for the organization of the Church. Would God mish-mash bishops and apostles, interchanging their roles and titles like eating corn flakes today instead of oatmeal? Nope.

According to whom?

That entire paragraph is a perfect demonstration of the apostasy. You're a mish-mash of apostles and bishops, some are and some aren't and some are something else, and some are whatever? That's organization? Bull...God organized that mish-mash? Why give anyone any title if titles can be tossed around like that confusion. Tell me another joke.That's a maze; something surely out of the mind of man, but not God. God is better than that, which is why He is God, and we are not. Yet.

No. Like I said, a militia is just one purpose of the right to bear arms. Why is that so hard to understand. The Constitution, by intent, does not spell everything out in minutia. The founding fathers expected us to think for ourselves.

We don't have militias anymore? The hell we don't.

Yes, one of several purposes, as the trailing phrase stipulates. The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed, either in type or purpose.

Yes, "Jesus" is written and pronounced by divergent spelling and vocalization in different languages. Though I am fluent in other languages, my mother tongue is English, so let's not get cheeky about language.

Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch, yes, but a bishop is not an apostle. Theere is a hierarchy in officers of the church, and the quorum of the Apostles headed the church after Jesus, himself. Shouldn't it be so, today?

Yes, I recognize the Trinity as three distinct beings; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, comprising the Godhead.

Curious that the true originalist, Jesus Christ, did not call it that, according to the record. According to Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Catholic" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 532, the word "Catholic" [καθόλου] does not exist before Saint Ignatius used it in a letter in 110 CE to Smyrna, yes, in Greek, well after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. So, how is it Christ's "original and only true church?" It appears the attribution belongs to Ignatius. Well, that rhymes with Jesus, so that's something.

You just did. Did I say my Greek education was modern Greek? Sorry, try again. I am also fluent in middle and new kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphics, also French, Italian, and Elizabethan English, with professional working experience in over 30 countries. Been around the block.

No, the 2A says because of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That statement does not prohibit other uses of arms [not restricted to firearms, by the way]. Where and how arms are manufactured are not conditional in the 2A, but it is in State law. My State law has no restriction on those matters of personal manufacture. Get it?

Yes, I know what a machine gun is.

No, my neighbor is not breaking the law. State law allows the personal manufacture of firearms, and that is statutory by State Constitution.

Without consideration of "all that," one has a skewed understanding of the Constitution, It is, after all, a document written over 200 years ago, and must be read in that context for understanding. You probably have trouble with Shakespeare, too, and that's just out-of-context English, as well. Get in the context. It's the only way to assure understanding.

Yes, the New Testament was primarily written in Greek, but that has no relation to the assumption that Greek orthodoxy had anything to do with it, because. at the time of first draft of scripture in Greek, it was not in Greece. Greek was, at the time, the preferred language of scholarship in the known world, much as French was the language of diplomacy  a couple of centuries beyond the Renaissance [there's a reason why that word is French], followed by English in the 19th century and onward. Language is driven by culture. So, lets not get wrapped in Greek orthodoxy. WhileJesus, himself, may have understood Greek [I see nothing to suggest he did not], his daily language of use was Aramaic; the common language of the Holy Land in his lifetime. Not the Jesus contributed one word to what became the canon; there is just one mention of his writing anything at all, and that was in dust with a finger, but t was not scripture that has survived. Greek is one of the languages in which I have read the Bible.

I did not imply that I favor Sola Scriptura; I just did not mention my particular Christian faith. Does it really matter in the scheme of reading the Scriptures, because I disagree that the scriptures open to a single denomination's understanding. It is still an individual effort, isn't it, to read and study and reason to arrive at conversion to the Word.

I'll tell you one curiosity regarding Greek: Fra Luca de Pacioli, a friend of da Vinci, and to whose De Divina Proportione da Vinci contributed illustration, interpretted the Greek of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word...", ['word' being 'logos' in Greek, not just as 'the word,' but also as 'ratio,' as in da Vinci's study, along with de Pacioli, of the 'golden ratio,' i.e. 1: 1.618. in other words, de Pacioli, seeing that ratio used throughout nature, believed the language of God was mathematics, and not Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or whatever.

Condescending? Who's condescending? Your mirror fails you.

Who knows if Merrick Garland would follow the law, or not? He was not deposed by advice and consent, was he? And that action to deny A-C was the choice of the Senate at the time. The Senate is not compelled to A-C, or it would have been included in Article 1 [Powers of Congress] and a specific, required duty. It is not there; it is in Article II, specifying the powers of the President, including having the power to nominate a replacement to the Court when a vacancy occurs any time during the President's 4-year term, and not limited by the possible proximity to a presidential election. That's an invented qualification that is not supported constitutionally. Article II also indicates that in order to confirm a nomination to the Supreme Court, the Senate will engage A-C, but that action is not an absolute requirement, as noted above. Yes, politics enters the fray, and the Senate may decide it will not engage A-C if the political leadership decides it will not do it. Complain all you like, but that is the system in play, and it has been since ratification of the Constitution in 1788. If you don't like it, go to your State legislature, as I advised in the first place. They can initiate a State Convention to raise an amendment.

Yes, the Supreme Court may confirm a State Law constitutional, or it will not. State Law does have precedence to be determined by the S.C.  when it is State law that is challenged. If it is a federal law challenged, that that law is the matter before the Court.

In 18th century syntax, nouns were capitalized. At the time of composition of the Constitution, and the first 10 Amendments, each State was considered free of federal incursion on the rights of its citizens and its right to legislate its own internal affairs in any matter not given to Congress to enact. Congress was given power to enact law in 17 specific items [Article I, section 8] Over time, Congress has usurped more power than granted by the Constitution.For example, you find no allowance of Congress to legislate in. matters of education, public entitlement, or even protection of citizens of States. These were to be State issues to legislate.  Citizens of the U.S. are, by constitutional decree, citizens of States, first, thus, in militia-speak, at the time, in the Revolutionary War, and subsequent as needed, you had militias that were "Virginia regulars," "Massachusetts regulars," and the like, all separate from a federal Army.

Note: https://dmv.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dmv/page_content/attachments/Final%20DMV%20Brochure%20Sept.%2027%2C%202013_0.pdf. which is the current D.C. DMV webpage, which indicates that the District of Columbia nomenclature began in 2013, and still indicates its use today, being the current webpage. 

is that the only form of capitalism in existence? Nope. I've not acquired my stash by being authoritarian. 

Does the 2A prohibit our right to make our own whiz-bang guns? My neighbor has machined several of his own guns. He has that right.

Sorry for the late reply. We must understand the syntax of the 2A with its curious, 18th century syntax, which is not as Madison would write it today, but the order of the phrasing is important. We would put the subject of the matter first; the right to keep and bear arms," followed by its justification, to be properly prepared to participate in a non-professional, but organized army; a militia. But consider what other uses were important to the 18th century. No grocery stores; the gun was the store. Go out, hunt, acquire your own meat and bring it home. That was as necessary as going to the store is today, unless we also happen to hunt. Even then, I don't think 100% of our meat source is via hunting. Theirs was. I don't think they had commercial shooting ranges, either. So, there were other needs for having guns, but, this matter of the Constitution was almost entirely about individual rights against the power of government, ot even against foreign invasion. It was a matter of personal security and liberty, and then, if not so much now, that security and liberty was defended at the muzzle of a gun. That was the purpose then; we recognize that other purposes exist today, but the amendment does not preclude those other purposes, does it? So, why change it?

Apostasy occurs when the Holy Spirit departs from anyone who once had it, but the departure is not the doing of the Holy Spirit. It is the person whose own attitude goes contrary to obedience to God. And once the Spirit has withdrawn, those men and women are left unto themselves, and a man alone, from whom the Holy Spirit has withdrawn is dumb to its influence and conjures all manner of wickedness, thinking he is still doing the will of God. That's apostasy.

You bicker back and forth that such and such is the true Christian principle. Where is the Holy Spirit in that dispute? Not a participant, or you would be of one accord. Yes, the scriptures have contradictions, but consider how they have been treated over centuries of use. Not one single book of the Holy Bible is directly from an original written text. And not one of those original texts was written by God, or Jesus, but by men. Fallible men, even though endowed with the Holy Spirit. Add to that centuries of transliteration and translation one language to another. What occurs in these activities? Copy errors. Dictionary-to-dictionary comparisons. But dictionaries are poor teachers of culture, and language is the direct result of culture. Without understanding ancient culture, your translations will be flawed. Do that over and over again [how many generations away from the original text?] and what do you have? You don't need to guess. So, how to make understanding out of all that?  Y'all refuse to simply go to the source. Ask God. 

Part of your problem is that you try to figure it out on your own. There's no problem with that; we're expected to study with trial and error. But, it's not enough. As you cite scripture, what do you cite? One verse here and there, cherry-picking. Is that how your research in scientific inquiry? No, you read a text, you observe the whole of a system, not just its parts. So read more than one verse. I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times. In four languages. I'll point you to James 1: 5, but don't start and finish there. Read the whole chapter for context. One verse seldom gives context. Start with verse 2: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations;"   Joy? in temptation" What? Read on: "3. Knowing this, that the trial of your faith worketh patience." Aren't temptations trials of faith? And what is faith. Read the entire book of Hebrews, but, in particular, ch. 11]. That is probably the best passage on faith in the Bible. So, having faith works patience. You're not going to get it all in one five-minute read.  "4. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." Give patience a chance while you study and... and what? Not yet, patience will have a perfect work. You will ultimately understand all, and become perfect in that understanding. Now, here's the answer to my question. faith, and what? "5. If a man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." How simple, and profound is that? Have faith, and pray. Ask the source of all this. You want to know something, go to someone who knows, yeah? God doesn't know? Wrong. But, what if you're full of doubt. Also wrong. "6.But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed." Appears to me, y'all are pretty tossed. You cannot ask God for wisdom unless you are prepared to handle what you receive. When you ask for something, have you prepared a place to put it? If I'm a basketball coach, and I need basketballs, and I order them in a volume of space larger than my locker, I'll be overwhelmed. I must make room for them. That is an act of faith. [Read Paul's Hebrews, yet?] Same with blessings from God. Read Malachi 3; the whole chapter [it's short]. The kicker is verse 10, and then lets talk about about room to receive answers from God.  This is not done by a lacking attitude. Be serious. Be faithful. Be ready to receive. Be humble. Time to engage James at his word, yeah? Or do you think this is all supposed to be given without consistent effort? No one ever said following Christ is easy, but it's worth it.

Hotdamn! That's a classic statement. Reminds me of Madison's, "If men were angels, we would not need government." You've said it better, and more realistically. Congrats

What do you think the National Guard is? 10 U.S.C. § 246

I would have defined voting rights clearly and succinctly. As it is, 8 of 27 amendments, nearly 1/3 of them, have addressed voting rights, and we still do not have it clear enough. No other subject has occupied as much constitutional conflict and discussion as our basic right of citizenship. I admire James Madison immensely, but on this one, he punted.

Are you forgetting that it is a political process that nominates and consents to SCOTUS appointments, but that doesn't mean the Court is destined to be political? The President is a political office, so he does not need to pretend to be unbiased. The Senate is comprised political officers. But not the Court, usually. Case in point: Roe v. Wade. Who do you think decided Roe? Liberal Justices? Four of the seven who decided forRoe were Republican nominees. Get it?

I don't disagree. But as for Virginia and Brown [neither of which I've mentioned], I don't disagree with either finding, and your assumption that my logic goes against them is flat wrong. If you want to be in my shoes, buy them. You do not get to usurp them by assumption. And, no, no State can implement slavery. The 14A precludes it as constitutionally prohibited.

Enough. But IQ is a poor qualifier since it does not exhibit a competent use of knowledge; just that one has it. Having is not the measure of use. Oh, being able to calculate is surely a demonstration of use of knowledge, but an old story says "why should I need to study calculus? I'll never use that skill in my life." That attitude is a guarantee that it will be needed, but non-use has a way of rendering no sustained knowledge. IQ cannot resolve that lack. Fore example, keyboard mistrokes occur, even though I use one professionally. 

Yes, it contains numerous contradictions. But that only means that:

1. The Bible was not written by one person, and none of them were God, or even Jesus Christ. Therefore, as works of men, some contradictions are bound to, and do exist.

2. The Bible exists today as a transliterated, and translated volume by not-all-scholarly-individuals-as-scholarly-as-they-needed-to-be. Transliteration is only as accurate as the scribe is detail-oriented enough to be as accurate as needed to be. Translation is virtually impossible to make accurate because translation is typically a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison, And dictionaries do a notoriously poor job of teaching culture; the driver of language. Result: errors.

3. Some transcribers and translators had alternative agendas than maintaining "the Word of God" by substitution and outright deletion of text from originating texts.

4. Not one single book of the Old and New Testaments we have today are derived from original texts because we don't have original texts. Back to #2.

5. We have to study, which is more than mere reading. Having some understanding of the ancient languages helps, but, in a pinch, ask God. That's why He's there after all. If a passage is troublesome, ask Him what its all about, if its true, or not, and how to properly interpret it. If He is ultimately the inspiring source of His Word, why question whether He knows, or not? Just ask in faith, having real intent, with a desire to know of yourself. 

Marshall McLuhan, a Communications Professor at Fordham University in the 60s proposed that with [then] live television and radio circling the globe [no Internet, then], into which every student could tune even in the classroom [we had portable transistor radios with earphones], no one should wonder why they [the students] were confused by the 19th-century classroom construct. We still have that construct 65 years later, and students are more confused than ever. That's the state of education today. It hasn't remained current with the times.

Is your avatar the evidence that Joe Biden will beat Joe Biden, because he is not Joe Biden? Will By Don beat Joe Biden? if so, I guess Trump wins. Might want to change the avatar.

Yes. Follow the law. There are questions posed by the Court in the Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS decision [6-3]: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?" The decision rendered answered those questions as "No, yes, and yes." However, despite of that decision, there are still 11 states whose statutes ban sodomy: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Texas, from Lawrence, changed their State law. Your argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 States. Complain to them.

So, the answer to your question is: it depends on which State originates a Supreme Court case similar to Lawrence v. Texas. I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be. In other words, the expectation that a Court make-up by apparent ideology is the exact wrong way to look at the Court, because, over history, the Court has determined the most cases, 49.7% of them, unanimously. That would suggest the Court is typically not bias to an ideology, but rather to the law, or unanimity would not occur so often, would it?

Even in satire, offense can be taken, not because it was intended, and you clearly did not, but because it is the unwritten consequence of the US Constitution's first amendment. That is, because there is freedom of speech, someone is capable of taking offense by it. We simply have the right to be offended, but censure is not the appropriate response.

That said, nothing here takes me by offense, and, therefore, no need to seek censure, which, as said, is inappropriate, anyway. Just thought I'd tickle your disclaimer.

Ah, right. I do remember the debate with RM; the other is a little fuzzy, I think its in voting now and I will address it before it closes. I do recall the discussion of potential harm to us without a fuller understanding of conditions.

Even when half that fetus is contributed by another claimant to ownership? That it happens to located in the mother's body has already been demonstrated as no cause for claiming exclusive ownership, if you eve want to go there. Read my post #11 re: the 14A, the law relative to possession of a human. Tell me the fetus will be any other species but human, and that its humanness is not determined even before conception.

Why? At least in the United States: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14A of the Constitution, section 1.

Though it declares a person's right to property, the preceding liberty cannot be denied to any other person that could, otherwise, be property of another.

I am intrigued by this conditional trailing statement.

Where have I expressed bias? I give you law and science, such as both are currently construed. And, recall that in both cases, Roe and ACA, I've offered the only bias that is in my argument; that it is likely no single case before the Supreme Court, regardless of its alleged ideology [which, as I've explained, does not exist when nearly 60% of all cases are unanimous decisions], will overturn either extant law. Both are too complicated for a single case's relevant points. Oh, I've also offered bias, but well founded, that in both cases, Democrats appear to fear that their holy grails are perfect law, when it is apparent by the left's actions and words they are both weakly constructed, or you would not be fearful of their being struck down. Why are y'all lacking confidence in them?

I know your argument is without malice because you are a Brit, so at least I can trust your motives. Not so much my own countrymen.