Last night’s NBC’s town hall in Miami with former Vice President Joe Biden was panned, to quote Politico’s Marc Caputo, as another “Biden Informercial” that protected the candidate from both tough questions and skeptical voters. There was not a single question on Biden refusing to answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court, a move supported by his running mate Kamala Harris and various top Democrats in this election. However, Biden did make one notable comment about the Court and nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He said that, if Barrett helped reverse Roe v. Wade, he would make “Roe the law of the land.”
If Roe were overturned, Biden declared his “only response to that is pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”
The comment was notable in a number of respects. First, states could challenge such a move. As with Biden’s declaration that he will require mandatory mask wearing nationwide, there are serious questions over his authority to compel such action due to federalism limitations. If the Supreme Court struck down Roe, it would be presumably based on the position that it is not a constitutional right. Biden would then order states to guarantee something that is not constitutionally required. That would put the Biden Administration on a collision course with the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Making “Roe the law of the land” would require a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Yet, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, states could claim that this is no longer a right “delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.” The Framers were deeply concerned about precisely this type of federal encroachment as James Madison addressed in Federalist #46. They created a system to support the “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
The alternative to simply tie federal funding for medical care and insurance to access to abortion services. That would also raise federalism issues and the question of “commandeering” states. In 1992, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 as commandeering. In 1997, in Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot order states or cities to enforce federal law. In Independent Business v. Sebelius(2012), the Court held that the federal government could not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs. In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Court again warned that Congress could not take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” in such policy or program disputes.
If the media is not going to press Biden on court packing, it is not likely to do so on these constitutional questions. However, it is also notable that, if successful, Biden’s action would support the view of many who oppose Roe v. Wade. It is possible to be in favor of the right to choose and still disfavor Roe. Some believe that this is a matter for the states and that voters can protect this right as a matter of state law. Biden’s reference to a legislative fix is clearly federal not state. However, it highlights that fact that, even if Roe were overturned, it would not mean the elimination of the right to choose. Most states would likely continue to protect the right as a matter of statutory law. Clearly, however, some would not. Moreover, if you view abortion as an individual constitutional right, such state authority over this decision is obviously unacceptable.
This is an area where experts can have good-faith disagreements. It is dependent on your view of federalism and related constitutional questions. It is worthy of debate and discussion. As with the court packing scheme, this new position raises questions over how Biden views fundamental constitutional values and powers. Unfortunately, the NBC event stumbled over a substantive exchange, but then promptly moved on. Like packing the Court, voters will have to wait to hear how such authority would be or could be used in a Biden Administration.
Biden declared his “only response to that is pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”
Exactly!
It is well past time to move on from this issue. If Biden is elected, there are many other things to fear from his administration that will imoact 100% of us.
It will never be time to ‘move on’. No decent society kills its young.
DSS, what makes you think the left wants a decent society? What makes you think they support American values?
In a nutshell, Trump is America’s greatest disgrace. He has surpassed Bush.
Issac- This President is so deep in your head the topic could be carburetors and somehow you’d bring President Trump into the discussion.
Isaac, you are getting sleepy.
I think Issac is a bot.
No president is as disgraceful as Obama.
Obama did what Nixon dreamed of.
I don’t think Nixon had such a vivid imagination.
China, 1.4 billion. India, 1.3 billion. Southeast Asia, 1 billion.
America imports its population, replacing Americans with unassimilable, parasitic, foreign, invader hyphenates.
American women near barren status and kill the babies they do have.
You go, girls!
In all my years I have never been able to decide one way or another on the abortion question. I don’t want to tell anyone what to do with their body. If you’re a woman who wants an abortion or a guy who wants to be a woman and goes to an uncertified cockeyed Mohel to become a woman, it’s your body. I also don’t want to see an innocent little human life sucked away, poisoned or dismembered as a result of a night of sexual passion. Life is so precious and fleeting. There must be an answer somewhere but I’m not sure the government can give us the answer.
Look, we give Trump credit when he talks ballsy nonsense, so we should recognize Biden’s right to do the same. Once Barrett is confirmed, the eventual overturn of ROE will allow the same kind of finesse language that pro-life states have used to challenge the decision from the beginning. Biden will try to march a kind of “neutural” version of Roe through Congress, and he’ll get it. That means it will be challenged immediately in court, and eventually, maybe after Biden leaves office, reach the Supreme Court. But who knows what the Court will be then? Thomas is certain to retire soon, and will be replaced by a liberal, restoring a 5-4 conservative majority. Will that one overturn the ROE statute? Biden’s gamble may be that a second ROE decision will be drafted better than the first, based on Roberts’ record of trying to please everyone (and nobody). Ultimately, however, the result may be for pro-choice leaders to see that their only real choice is Constitutional amendment.
Roe is not going to be overturned it is going to be narrowed.
That is what 80% of the country wants.
“In 1997, in Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot order states or cities to enforce federal law.”
************************
While I don’t advocate an overturning of Roe v. Wade on stare decisis grounds (despite its clearly dubious rationale), I do think it would be deliciously ironic to see the Left hoisted on the same petard they tried to foist on Trump when he tried to secure our borders and was met with “sanctuary” cities all parading the Printz banner around.
While I don’t advocate an overturning of Roe v. Wade on stare decisis grounds
It isn’t the Federal Reserve or the Social Security program. You’re not going to generate a social crisis if you unload Roe v Wade. You’ll just give state governments leave to exercise discretion.
Art deco:
I think you would see a lot of social unrest. It’s really an ebbing application case* but a lot of people are emotionally invested. I have no problem with a third semester abortions ban or bans when fetal viability outside the mother can be proven. Roe was decided on outdated science — even in 1973.
*The abortion rate in 2017 was 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 8% from 14.6 per 1,000 in 2014.1 This is the lowest rate ever observed in the United States; in 1973, the year abortion became legal, the rate was 16.3
Mespo,
We’re always going to have social unrest. I see parallels between the issue of slavery and abortion. Both are hideous practices. The main difference however is that a legitimate argument can be made for abortion in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. The compromise should be to eliminate Roe and pass a law protecting the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy for those specific reasons only. Arguing that it should be a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body should begin and end with their responsible choice of getting pregnant in the first place.
The ‘rape / incest’ exception is hooey.
I agree, we should definitely force a woman who’s been raped to carry her rapist’s child.
Art Deco:
I tend to agree rape/incest exception isn’t really the proper focus. You can’t punish the innocent child but if the abortion occurs before fetal viability, I’d have less of an issue with it. I’m with Aquinas on this one.
Why? In both cases the female’s right of consent was violated. What would be the rationale to force a victim to carry her perpetrator’s child?
I think you would see a lot of social unrest. I
You’ve got that now. It’s just that the discontented people are not the sorts appellate judges give a rip about.
” . . if Barrett helped reverse Roe v. Wade, he would make “Roe the law of the land.” How so, Joe? Isn’t that up to Congress? Or are you anticipating another Obama-esque ‘ Executive Order ‘ ?
We’ve been through this process before, with slavery. And once again we are fighting Democrats over a natural right. I expect Roe gets Missouri Compromised with states deciding. It will get the Kansas-Nebraska treatment and eventually this will be the trigger for our next Civil War. What’s really weird is this time Democrats are supported by blacks as they want the freedom to kill their own children.
Though this is certainly concerning, more so to me is the fact that Federal agencies are ‘running out the clock’ in their cooperation with ongoing investigations. It is being done so brazenly, rampantly, and unilaterally it tells me they have likely been given reassurances we will never know about. That the DNC, whom are unusually and uncharacteristically quiet about what is supposed to be a free and fair election in which they frankly aren’t in a position to be so forthrightly arrogant, is also very concerning. It *all* spells trouble with a capital T to me.
“Like packing the Court, voters will have to wait to hear how such authority would be or could be used in a Biden Administration.”
Why? Why should ‘voters have to wait’ to get candidate Biden to answer questions like these? These fake townhalls with their pre-screened questions, likely fed to Biden before hand, supposedly vet the candidate? Did you watch the ABC townhall with Trump and Stephanopolous where they tried to trip Trump up with tough questions from voters deemed “undecided” who were obviously Trump hating voters out to ‘get Trump’ with their questions?
What a disgrace the media has become. What a sham (and a shame) old Joe Biden is as a Trojan horse candidate.
We all know that Kamala Harris was initially ‘the chosen one,’ propped up and promoted by Barack Obama himself, and when she completely bombed out of the primary, failing to connect with voters at all, what do they do? They implement their sinister plan is to slide Kamala into the presidency by way of deceiving the voters about who she is and what she believes and what their plan really is once demented old Joe steps aside as soon as possible. It is obvious that Joe Biden is not up to the job. It is obvious that the Democrat party, and Barack Obama in particular, are truly despicable in how they operate to deceive and willfully lie to the people.
The Democrats count on the stupidity of the American people in order for them to stay in power. What they don’t count on is that the people are not as stupid as they think.
Barack Obama didn’t endorse anyone until April. Harris was already out of the race by then.
I’m sure you also ask why should ‘voters have to wait’ to get candidate Trump to make his tax returns public.
Where are Obama’s school records? Where are Biden’s.
There are things that must be released by law. None of these things including Trump’s tax returns require release.
Anonymous doesn’t know it but the tax returns reveal less than the other documents (disclosures) Trump had to release. He is ignorant as to how clean Trump actually is because he has been so heavily audited by the IRS, NYC, NYS, along with other public entities every time he undertakes a project. He has also been investigated for four years by democrats who failed to produce any illegal activity though they produced illegal activity of their own.
When it comes to information, Anonymous is a waste of time.
Law doesn’t require Biden to address court packing either, jackass, which is what I was responding to. You can’t even follow an argument.
Allan ignores that Eric Trump testified yesterday in a Trump tax fraud investigation and pretends that Trump is “clean”.
Ah Anonymous, so you understand that Biden and Harris will attempt to get away with packing a court. That idea is un-American and was shown to be so when FDR tried to do the same. Court packing is a way of negating the Constitution but I doubt you understand what that means.
What I understand, Allan, is that you’re a troll.
Of course you don’t understand what I said. Your intellect is lacking. Your standard response is to call everyone what you are.
Allan continues looking in the mirror and talking to himself.
Anonymous, you don’t need a mirror. You actually talk to yourself on the blog mostly patting yourself on the back. You use your multiple personalities to bolster your ego.
Allan, “ Ah Anonymous, so you understand that Biden and Harris will attempt to get away with packing a court. That idea is un-American and was shown to be so when FDR tried to do the same. Court packing is a way of negating the Constitution but I doubt you understand what that means.”
The idea is complete American and there’s ample precedent to boot. The court has been expanded before and it’s completely constitutional since the constitution doesn’t prohibit congress from doing it. If democrats gain control of the senate and the White House all you can do is whine about it. It’s as simple as that.
“The idea is complete American and there’s ample precedent to boot. ”
If the court needs to be enlarged that can be accomplished but in this case democrats are trying to destroy the system by politicizing the Supreme Court by enlarging it so that they can stack the court with leftists. FDR tried it but at that time democrats were more honest so the attempt was rejected.
Allan, enlarging the court is not politicizing it. It’s about balancing it. The right is stacking the court right now with rightists. So if leftists choose to do so they can just as the right is currently doing. But if you think that’s wrong then you should be critical of the right’s own attempt to do so.
I guess you do not understand the meaning of stacking the court or what that does to the fabric of the nation. The right is doing what it is supposed to do. Even RBG gives credence to the right’s action. If we are to expand and contract the court every time a new party comes to power then each new court will reject prior decisions in one fell swoop. That will cause great instability to the nation and possibly its downfall.
Then again the left is anti-American to begin with so maybe they are looking for the country’s downfall.
I don’t care about seeing Joe Biden’s sanitized tax returns. I want Joe Biden to answer questions about his family’s financial ties to China and Ukraine. Instead of letting Joe simply dismiss it as “debunked nonsense” I want Joe Biden to answer hard questions about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China.
Hunter Biden’s business dealings are relevant. They actually served the “strategic interests” of the Chinese government and military which directly impactts our national security, These are the questions voters want asked and answered by Joe Biden.
Sure. Ask Trump the same questions about Ivanka’s, Eric’s and Don Jr’s business dealings in China, the Philippines, Turkey, India, and elsewhere.
No equivalence. Yet the media pursues this Trump family angle relentlessly while they dismiss questions into Joe Biden’s family corruption entirely and pretend it doesn’t exist.
The media pursue both, and Trump personally benefits from the Trump Organization, but Joe Biden doesn’t personally benefit from Hunter Biden’s business.
Hunter Biden’s business dealings raise serious national security questions. Hunter’s dealings in China directly benefitted the strategic interests of Chinese government and its miliary while his daddy was sitting Vice President. There is no equivalence to Trump Organization building a hotel or Ivanka getting trademarks for clothing and sunglasses which is a normal part of doing business. The media is all but ignoring Hunter Biden’s grotesque corruption while letting Joe Biden simply dismiss it as “Hunter did nothing wrong.”
Trump’s own business dealings overseas raise more serious national security questions. We still don’t know who Trump’s creditors are for the hundreds of millions of debt coming due soon.
Anonymous:
This is the Trump the left doesn’t want anyone to see because they are elitists and Trump is not. This is from a 2019 article in the Washington Post. It is quite different than the lies stated by the left on this blog and elsewhere.
Forwarded from an article:
Biden Emerges as A Country-Club Snob, Hypocrite
—
“Trump was shut out of all the private clubs, the heart of Palm Beach social life. … So Trump opened Mar-a-Lago as a private club in 1995. Unlike the Everglades or Bath and Tennis clubs, which did not admit Jewish members, and the Palm Beach Country Club, which admitted wealthy Jews, Mar-a-Lago was open to anyone. ‘Basically, he didn’t care who came in as long as they could pay for it,’ explains a Palm Beach social expert.”
The Washington Post article continued: “Trump’s open-door policy — his was the first club to accept African Americans and openly gay couples — began the slow process to diversify other clubs in town.”
It’s the same story in New York City, where Trump made money developing, managing, or operating mostly condominium buildings in Manhattan — apartments for people with money but without the references or pedigree or patience for co-op buildings and their arcane interview and approval processes.
The Washington Post article continued: “Trump’s open-door policy — his was the first club to accept African Americans and openly gay couples — began the slow process to diversify other clubs in town.”
—
Trump’s overseas activities have been within the law. The investigations proved that. If he did anything wrong we would know i.
You draw conclusions from thin air. Biden’s family all profit from the same public servant corruption.
Trumps family work in the private sector . They benefit from hard work.
What does Anonymous benefit from?
“ No equivalence. Yet the media pursues this Trump family angle relentlessly while they dismiss questions into Joe Biden’s family corruption entirely and pretend it doesn’t exist.”
You’re advocating for the same thing democrats are doing. You claim they are just harassing trump, but you advocate for exactly that of Biden. Which means you should be perfectly ok with what democrats are doing because it’s just as valid as what you cited as examples.
If you have credible claims that Trump’s family profited from Trump’s actions as president – provide it.
There is plenty of evidence that Biden’s family profited by Biden’s public service.
While some of the Biden familiy misconduct is legal though reprehensible. It appears some of it may be criminal.
I see nothing of the same in the Trump family.
Also Hunter Biden’s dealings in Russia. And Ukraine. All over the world when his father was a sitting VP. All of this raises national security questions but the media lets Joe Biden off the hook and never follows up on these unethical and highly questionable dealings by the Biden family. It is grotesque all the self-dealing Joe Biden’s family has done over his decades in public office.
Barack Obama didn’t need to endorse Kamala publicly for everyone to know who his favored candidate was/is.
Don’t care about Trump’s tax returns just like I don’t care about Biden’s tax returns or Hillary Clinton’s tax returns. None of it is an honest accounting of anything the voters need to know.
Anonymous @9:53 is a doofus who thinks he can read Obama’s mind.
Everyone in politics knows this. It’s no secret mind-reading trick.
A sick mind is trying to explain a response but fails to realize that many people drew the same conclusion without reading Obama’s mind.
Most people can’t understand their own tax returns let alone a tax return like Trump must have. They would have no clue how profit or loss from various pass-through entities affect a tax return. Multiply that by probably hundreds in Trumps case. If he used tax laws to avoid taxes it is perfectly legal. Someone with his multiple businesses passing through to his personal tax return more likely than not gets audited every year.
Karen Ann, problem is trump has used questionable claims to reduce his tax liabilities and it’s possible he committed tax fraud. That is important because the law doesn’t say tax fraud is legal. The loopholes he used to reduce his tax burden may be legal, but certain claims such as inflated property values to reduce tax liabilities is fraud. Trumps tax returns are needed to determine whether he did that or not. His own former lawyer stated under oath that trump was deliberately overvalued his properties just so he could pay less taxes. That’s illegal.
Svelaz,. you don’t get it.
NYT did a big piece about Trump’s daddy’s “estate and gift tax planning”
they claimed he had DEVALUED the family holdings with “lowball appraisals”
the correct term of art is actually “fractional discounts.”
NYT was badly wrong that there was anything illegal about this whatsoever. They staked out a position about E& G tax that was a joke to practicioners.
Now you say Trump OVER-valued his real estate for some purpose?
Excuse me if I say you guys cant get your story straight.
Hey, Im not spending five minutes of my life on NYT’s lies about Trump’s taxes. I wasted hours parsing the first batch of lies and I couldnt get the smell of dung out from under my fingernails for weeks.
Might be your fingernail problem is from something else than reading the NYT, Kurtz.
I was wondering who was gonna take that swipe, lol, shoulda known it was you
What happened to book? I already miss him. Tell him I said hi
Mr. Kurtz, this is not about Trump’s daddy’s dealings. It’s about Trump’s own dealings. If he inflated the values of his properties to get loans and lower his taxes by posting losses then the math doesn’t jive with the irs.
Fraud is very much suspected and this being Trump it’s very likely he committed it.
His tax returns will clarify whether there’s reason to press criminal charges of not.
As a former clerk on the U.S. Tax Court, I can tell you that, where there are tax disputes, the IRS almost always seeks payment in a civil action. Criminal charges are very much the exception, and have to involve really flagrant misconduct.
Thanks Lysias like I said CTHD this is a top law blog and there will be other lawyers who can say even better than I. As he just did.
There are a hundred lawyers lurking for every one who pipes up and not all who pipe up will even admit they are lawyers. I will spare the explanation for why. Just take it from me there is a big law audience reading this blog so if you serve up weak sauce someone may just complain.
Now I will add. Not only laymen but lawyers often do not have a good grip on what constitutes evidence admissible in the record. If you have not stood up in court and tried to prove facts with admissible evidence, or if you have not tried on they fly in the middle of a hot mic to make a cogent objection, the concepts may be rather abstract and hard to apply to some of the conversations topics of the day.
The garbage in certain newspapers is mostly just speculation about hearsay secret supposed records from unqualified not-experts who have not testified under oath and were never subject to cross examination. HENCE None of that amounts to dicky squat.
They are hiding their source material which is the first thing. It’s immediately suspect that you have people making conclusions from papers nobody can see. No that is not Trump’s problem that is the NYT’s problem because they are the ones projecting conclusions based on the secret supposed papers. But normally here some stupid Trump hater will jump in and say “just release the returns!” entirely missing the point.
So we have foundational problems for these secret papers which were obtained if at all by a person who committed a cvrime by leaking them. We can’t see but NYT is allowed to receive because they are vaunted Journalists. Now don’t get me going on what makes them any different from Julian Assange who got a different sort of leaked secret papers and he rots in jail for it but they do not. Putting that aside.
We have no way to verify the accuracy and completeness of the secret stolen supposed records. No foundation is possible of course if the one who is the proper keeper of the records is a hidden secret source. Normally you elicit that records are a true accurate and complete from the foundation witness. Here we never even got started so we didn’t get to that either. For all we know the NYT is just making it all up.
Now let’s move on to the socalled experts. Who are they and are they really qualified. Ha ha who knows. But we can be sure, they are BIASED or the NYT would not have asked them in the first place! Does anybody think they would run a story from a guy who says there’s nothing there? of course not. These presstitutes need to catch eyeballs by hanging the eye catching bazooms out there and luring in marks for the sale.
So the socalled biased experts, of the secret supposed records, gee, that’s a big zero in the first place, but beyond that, we’re not allowed any cross examination of course. We can point out some problems here but we are immediately dismissed by the Democrat talking points cheerleaders like CTHD who know it all even when they dont.
These conversations can be fun but one thing is certain. The “Orange Man Bad” crowd has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. NYT is fake news.
The IRS constantly threatens criminal action – to get big settlements. Especially for smaller players.
You said you were a clerk – how many times did you see tax claims against Billionaires on their businesses ?
Those do not go to tax courts often, and when they do, the Billionaires usually win, if not in the tax courts then at the IRS.
Do you think there is a single reporter that has a clue about any of this ?
Do you think there is a single reporter that is even capable of doing their own ridiculously simple taxes ?
We have been through these nonsense games of Trump overvalues, Trump undervalues – but people who have NO CLUE.
Even a significant number of prominent lawyers are completely clueless on taxes and investment.
Robert Barnes completely shredded “Legal Eagle” who he claims to otherwise respect for producing the most ludicrously flawed and false analysis of Trump taxes and tax laws.
There are many ways to value a property. But no one. not even the IRS lets you just “make it up”
The IRS provides very specific directions for the acceptable means to value a property.
“problem is trump has used questionable claims to reduce his tax liabilities and it’s possible he committed tax fraud.”
A small army of lawyers and accountants produced Trump’s tax returns. If anything you claim is true they all have civil liability and possibly criminal liability and possibly even civil liability to Trump.
I would further note that Trump has already been audited on these Tax returns.
The claims that Trump committed tax fraud are total nonsense by idiots who are clueless about tax law.
“The loopholes he used to reduce his tax burden may be legal, but certain claims such as inflated property values to reduce tax liabilities is fraud.”
You and most who comment on Trump’s taxes are idiots with no experience with taxes, or comerical real estate.
You seem to think it is incredibly easy to play illegal games with the value or a property – it is not. There are a variety of ways you can value a property for tax purposes but you MUST use one of those acceptable to the IRS – those include actual sale price, tax appraised value, or an actual appraised price. You do not get to just make up the value. Further mis-valuing a property really does not accomplish much as the property will eventually be sold and you will owe capital gains taxes that will be calculated based on YOUR value of the property, the sale value and the depreciated value. So all inflated or deflated (there are sometimes tax reasons to under value properties) do is change the time at which you owe the taxes. They do not actually reduce your long term taxes. Property values is not an area the IRS tends to scrutinize – because if they do not catch you coming, they will catch you going.
Finally – commercial real estate is typically bought/sold/refinanced between every 4 years and ever 7 years. That is because your leverage and profits are greatest at the start of your loans. This is also why Trump is highly leveraged – i.e. has enormous debt. That is normal for all capital investments such as real estate. If you have $100m in cash. You can buy a $100m building free and clear and lets say you make $2m/year on that building – that is a 2% ROI. But if you take that $100m and you buy 5 $100m buildings each mortgaged 80% you will have an income of $10m or a 10% ROI on the same $100m investment. This is Business economic 101. Everyone who took an introductory business course in college should know it. Trump certainly knows it. His army of tax lawyers and accountants all know it.
I would expect that Trump properties are refinanced ever 7 years at the most. When you refinance a property – the BANK will value the property – contra lunatic on the left no Bank – not Deutche Bank loans money on a property without getting is assessed.
In fact there is a whole commerical due dilligence industry arround commerical refinancing. Not only is a building assessed every time it is refinanced, it is also reviewed for environmental issues and reviewed to certify the current condition and estimated maintanace costs.
I know something about this because I have a small Due Dilligence business. On Friday I will be doing a PCA on two commercial buildings in MD. I usually do about 100 PCA’s a year. I have done everything from Dollar General’s to skyscrapers on central park in manhattan.
Commerical real estate developers are NOT going to game the banks. And they are not going to game the IRS.
Nothing is impossible, but most large scale commercial tax fraud is stupid. You will get caught and even if you don’t it will not really help you.
That is not to say that congress does not create all kinds of ways to reduce taxes. Trump benefitted greatly from the tax reforms that Pelosi Obama and Schumer put through in 2009. He did EXACTLY what they wanted him to do, and they rewarded him with large tax savings.
If you have a problem with that – blame Schumer, Pelosi and Obama.
“Trumps tax returns are needed to determine whether he did that or not.”
Nope, the IRS determines whether or not you have paid your taxes correctly. They have their own judges and prosecutors and courts.
There is no need and no basis for anyone outside the IRS to see Trump’s tax returns. All the returns in question were audited by the IRS while Obama was president.
Trump also pays state taxes. He files a state Tax return with New York. The NY Dept Revenue is entitled to review Trump’s NY taxes – not his federal taxes. They have his state tax returns. The State of NY can not enforce or even investigate the violation of federal laws, just as the federal government can not investigate or prosecute violations of state laws. There is zero basis for State access to Trump’s federal tax returns.
“His own former lawyer stated under oath that trump was deliberately overvalued his properties just so he could pay less taxes.”
Then you would be able to prove that.
It is unlikely that any lawyer ever would say anything like that. If true it would be multiple violation of professional ethics and probably the law. Further as noted above – this nonsense about over or undervaluing property is just that. You do not get to just make up the value of a property – not for taxes, not for insurance, not for refinances. There are plenty of instances where property owners want for any number of reasons a high value (or more rarely a low value) for their properties. There are many legal ways to value property and they do not produce the same result. Though I would note BY LAW (and reality) the most definitaive price of anything is its last sale price.
Regardless, no one lets you make up the value of a property. It just does not happen.
Further almost no one “cheats” on property valuation – because the benefits over the lang run are small.
As should be evident from what is known about Trump’s taxes – most of which could be guessed without them – after all he is a real estate developer. Trump pays very little in taxes. That is the norm. There is little incentive to “cheat” if there is no significant benefit.
No one who had a clue about tax law and real estate would have said most of the nonsense that has been printed about Trump’s taxes.
Lefties don’t give a damn about the Constitution because it’s stands in the way of their utopian visions.
“After months of delays, President Trump’s son Eric was questioned under oath on Monday as part of a civil investigation by New York’s attorney general into whether the Trump family’s real estate company committed fraud….. The attorney general’s investigation is focused on whether the Trump Organization inflated its assets to get bank loans and tax benefits….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/nyregion/eric-trump-investigation-election.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
Democrats are annoyed that Trumps family has been able to make money legally in the private sector. How dare such people enter the public sector and do a better job than a Senator who has been around 47 years? What do democrats do? They slime the Trumps for being successful in the public market. Where else is that done? Communist or dictatorship nations where one becomes rich only if permitted by the leaders, you know, leaders like a Biden.
Biden feels public service is the way to enrich himself and his family. They don’t earn money in the private sector. They steal money from the public sector by dealing with our enemies to reap big profits. The Moscow Mayor gave 3.4 million. The Chinese invested $1.5 in Biden’s company and that company exchanged ownership of an American company to China with technologies that now make the Chinese air force more dangerous. The Ukrainians are probably still paying Hunter off. I’m not sure if all Maverick schools are closed but that is another Biden scheme. 47 years of poor leadership and theft. That is Joe Biden.
Tax fraud isn’t legal, doofus.
What foolishness. The IRS has audited Trump and continues to do so.
You probably are an expert in cheating on your taxes.
The IRS doesn’t audit state taxes, jackass. This is a NY state tax fraud case. Are you purposefully trying to look ignorant?
Idiot, how do you think people calculate NYS taxes?
Are you asking about honest people or about con artists like Trump and his offspring?
about con artists like Trump and his offspring?
How embarrassing for you. The greatest con ever inflicted on the American people is the Clinton/Russia/DNC/FBI/IC/DOJ coup attempt. The evidence proving it is overwhelming and yet you and your ilk are still pumping lies about President Trump and his family. You have absolutely no credibility.
First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.
That answers the question in the back of people’s minds. You don’t know how NYS taxes are calculated. You comment on things you are ignorant about. Then you are stuck responding with another Stupid argument.
John say. “ I would further note that Trump has already been audited on these Tax returns.”
Not true according to the tax returns obtained by the NYT. Trump is still under audit for a $72 million refund.
Nobody is saying trump committed fraud, yet.
The issue is that Trump’s tax ”maneuvering” is rightly suspect.
Arthur Andersen has a literal army of accountants and tax experts and yet they were found to have committed accounting fraud.
Just because trump had a lot of accountants doesn’t mean he employed them to cheat the system and possibly commit fraud. His constant dishonesty and untrustworthiness doesn’t lend any credibility towards being “legal”.
Hey book welcome back.
Wait so there is a big allegation that Trump organization did what tens of millions of homeowners did which helped cause the 07-08 financial crisis? OOOOO scary!
For which eric Holder put no big fish in jail, just a couple hundred small fry mortgage brokers?
Gee it would be interesting to dust all that era off and see, but why bother, Obama’s man ran out the clock on persecutions. Statutes of limits have passed. The banksters got off scot free, but maybe the press can cock up some kind of crap that will stir voters off the couch. I guess we’ll find out!
“After months of delays, President Trump’s son Eric was questioned under oath on Monday as part of a civil investigation by New York’s attorney general into whether the Trump family’s real estate company committed fraud….. The attorney general’s investigation is focused on whether the Trump Organization inflated its assets to get bank loans and tax benefits….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/nyregion/eric-trump-investigation-election.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.
What a petulant little troll you are.
Said by the premier idiot of the list.
Allan talks to himself while looking in the mirror.
That is a deflection. You pretend to be another anonymous and then you pat yourself on the back. What a fool. lol
BtB
Stupid comment the first time that you said it.
Quite amazing how Hunter and the entire Biden klan are free from questioning under oath by an attorney general. The entire group of coup conspirators have yet to pay for their deeds. If the Dems gain power Joe Biden tweeted that if he gets elected, his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it,” His supporters may not like the transformation.
Nobody is talking about the real issue here. Years ago I heard a female Christian pastor present a unique viewpoint, she stated she was “Pro-Choice but Anti-Abortion”. In other words she hated abortion and would never have one but was a real small government conservative – she wanted the “citizen” to have that authority, not a male government official. The citizen or mother would have to bear the costs of that decision for their entire lifetime, while the politician had no real skin in the game.
In states like Virginia, in the early 20th Century, government officials practicing Eugenics, sterilized some women (citizens) without their consent for those deemed inferior or even perceived as slutty. Germany in the late 1930’s adopted many of Virginia’s ideas and were practiced by the Nazi Party. The citizen (mother) will always make a better decision than a politician that has no skin-in-the-game. Many voters are probably also “Pro-Choice but Anti-Abortion” but this is viewpoint is rarely debated or the lessons of history.
So are you pro choice of murder, but hate murder? Should the “citizen” make this better decision?
Abortion isn’t murder.
Embryos aren’t people.
If you think embryos are people, do you also think people who discard IVF embryos should be charged with murder? Do you think embryos should be counted in the census? Do you want all miscarriages investigated to figure out whether they were elective vs. spontaneous? …
We know who you are. You are a believer in the culture of death along with all the gruesome desires..
Allan is a toddler who follows Commit around, whining about her. Putting thoughts in people’s minds and then attacking them for it is among Allan’s favorite trolling strategies.
Just correcting the record, Anonymous, a record you wouldn’t soil if you only wore a diaper. As everyone knows you are the number one troll on the blog and you have multiple personalities trolling around as well.
Never wrote that they were people. It is in fact human life. And is is in fact the killing of that human life. And yes, killing embryos is killing human life.
Jim, you asked “So are you pro choice of murder, but hate murder?”
You called it murder, which is the premeditated killing of a *person*, not the premeditated killing of a “human life.” For example, if a doctor kills a living human body after brain death by removing organs for organ transplantation, that’s clearly killing a human life, but it’s not murder, because the person has already legally died. Personhood matters a great deal here.
You conveniently left out the part that the brain dead death is a result consent before hand. A human fetus gives no consent.
An embryo and non-viable fetus is incapable of giving consent. It lacks the kind of brain function that’s assessed in determining brain death.
People generally don’t consent to becoming brain-dead. It occurs without their consent, often in an accident where their brain is injured and their heart continues beating, but sometimes for other reasons, as with a newborn born without brain function. Next of kin can give permission for them to be organ donors.
An no, you can’t take a brain dead body off life support, just like you can’t force a woman to have an abortion. It’s not your decision to make.
“An no, you can’t take a brain dead body off life support, just like you can’t force a woman to have an abortion. It’s not your decision to make.”
Why? You’ve determined it is not a person so what is the problem?
So, you see no difference between a brain dead human being and an embryo that is growing. Odd
Jim,
You asked “am I allowed to go into the hospital and find the brain dead and start killing them myself without repercussion,” and I pointed out that the answer is “no,” and now you ask “Why? You’ve determined it is not a person so what is the problem?”
What a stupid question. The living family of the brain dead person have rights, and we have laws regulating who can do what in hospitals. That an entity isn’t a person doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want with it. We have laws about all sorts of things that aren’t persons.
“you see no difference between a brain dead human being and an embryo that is growing.”
Don’t lie about me. I neither said that nor implied that. Of course I see many differences. But there are also some similarities: neither has personhood. It’s often the case that if you compare two categories, there are both similarities and differences.
“People generally don’t consent to becoming brain-dead. It occurs without their consent,”
I think many on the blog do consent to being brain-dead by simply listening to their leaders on the left and never checking out the details.
Right now details of Biden’s corruption are being held by the deep state hoping they can hold out and Joe Biden wins. I don’t think even you wants a corrupt government and the facts are out there. The only answer is you are brain-dead..
“It lacks the kind of brain function that’s assessed in determining brain death.”
false. the brain develops as differentiated tissue two months after conception or so.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302#:~:text=Week%207%3A%20Baby's%20head%20develops,beginnings%20of%20the%20retinas%20form.
Stick to the facts. Dont lie. Obviously unborn fetuses have brains, unless they have anencephaly. If they have brains and they live, then they have brain waves ie brain function.
The bottom line fact that pro aborts have going for them is a big one: the unborn fetus is a party of the woman’s body. That is a serious matter which makes the legal issues difficult. But most of the relevant biological facts go the other way. I have yet to see pro choice advocates bother to admit this. They just lie or pretend the facts are not what they are.
Mercifully, in Roe and Casey, the SCOTUS took some notice of relevant biological facts. Even the pro choice Justices have rarely been the sort of extremists that the pro choice activists often seem.
All of us come into this world in a dependent position and most of us leave in the same circumstance. It doesn’t matter a whit that the child is ‘part of a woman’s body’
It does matter and more than a whit. It merits serious consideration as a fact, in context with the other facts, along with what else you say., which alludes to other legal principles about how society protects the physically weak and dependent.
In a debate where both sides habitually evade relevant facts, there is little hope for diplomatic discussion of the subject.
when the pro aborts compare the fetus to a wart or cancer in the uterus, they are wrong. The fetus is a living thing and a genetically distinct organism.
and when the pro lifers pretend the fetus unborn is exactly the same as the born infant, they too evade a qualitative fact.
Now, one thing I deeply resent about pro aborts, is that they pretend the father has no biological relevance to this either. The father has no say in our system. Maybe there are legitimate reasons for this, but I resent the notion that I could have an unborn child and the mother could kill it off in utero without so much as informing me. This seems deeply unjust to me. And I have only been called names my whole life for bringing it up. Trust me my sympathies and moral reasoning generally is with the pro life side of the equation.
but the legal system we have which is based on individual rights, presents a strong norm for treating each individual person as a unit, and defying all other group-based rights. Such as the family, for example. Our system does not need to be this way entirely, and it is not now. We have group rights such as corporations of so many kinds and many other examples. Our system particularly the legal case interpretations of Civil Rights laws, even provides races and ethnicities with legal status. Unfairly in practice, but these are obviously group derived rights. So the individual as a norm for American law is a strong norm, but it is not the only norm.
Anyhow, factually, when it comes to this, Nature does not provide us with an easy picture here, such as if we were reproduced like frogs. it is more complicated than that.
No one’s evading any ‘facts’. They’re telling you that the fact is of scant significance.
I contend that the fact the fetus is a part of the woman’s body until it has been born is a relevant and significant fact.
You aren’t going to convince anybody of your point of view if you can’t admit that there is at least one relevant fact they have supporting their legal position.
I doubt you wish to convince anybody anyhow. I have been in and out of pro life circles before, and seen a certain amount of disingenuousness in play.
specifically, the idea that a lot of marching around and praying is going to change the SCOTUS equation at all. It won’t. That’s the point of SCOTUS. It is the “Supreme” undemocratic branch both in constitutional theory and in operation.
Pro lifers could do a lot better in the long run if their education involved educating people about how un-democratic the institution is which they spend day after day talking about.
Of course it’s even more dishonest on the pro abort side.
here’s the basic reality of history and law and politics, which is even more confusing than the biological facts, but more important for understanding how things work especially in an election year:
1. each state had abortion laws. some 47 or so state legislatures counted it illegal. that was DEMOCRACY in action. in only 3 states was it legal on demand of the mother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg
2. Congress could have theoretically pass a national health care – commerce related law making abortion a right. But they did not. They did not dare at the time. Public opinion was firmly against it
3. Financial powers-that-be had wanted abortion legalized for a long time. they finally got their way when the Roe v Wade decision was issued by SCOTUS. This was not the first dramatically un-democratic nullifcation of state laws, that may have been Brown or some other case. But it was the big one that the hidden oligarchy wanted.
4. People got used to it fast, as Hollywierd and the culture-controllers did their dirty work as they ever do. here we have the image of the rusty coat hanger back alley abortion. as if nobody ever convinced a doctor to do a fake- miscarriage D & C before Roe. Please! it was more legal than people realize.
5. Now the pro aborts are probably right that a majority of Americans probably do regard it as a right, at least in the early time of pregnancy.
Hence, we can see how DEMOCRACY was effectively vetoed, undermined, and cancelled by the SCOTUS acting at behest of the elites.
If the pro lifers including the Catholic Church that bleats so loudly about this were to bother to explain this better to people, maybe they would be using their time and energy more wisely. Why, it might even lead to other productive discussions such as the role of public culture and morality in a healthy government, and the legitimacy of the current secularism or not. It might even go into that forbidden ground of asking what the big money wants and how does that affect the political trends of the day? That would be a problem for the Church because then they would have to openly identify some of their adversaries and they don’t want to do that! The fix was in on that at Vat. 2.
So, we have the pro life pro abort conflict to keep the troops busy. the reality is: this will not change any time soon, no matter if Amy is appointed or not.
Art/TIA, your personal assessment of which facts are/aren’t “significant” is your opinion. Many people have different opinions about it than you do. Yours doesn’t count any more than anyone else’s.
Kurtz, for the record I do not consider compare an embryo or fetus to a wart or cancer. I am also not a “pro abort.” I think it should often be legal, but it would be fine with me if no one ever chose to have one. I do not advocate any abortion, only legality. Just like I don’t advocate lots of unpleasant or boring speech that I think should be legal.
“the brain develops as differentiated tissue two months after conception or so” (emphasis added)
Kurtz, pay attention to what I actually wrote: the kind of brain function that’s assessed in determining brain death.
A statement about brain function is not a statement about brain tissue. I would think this obvious, but someone who is brain dead still has differentiated brain tissue, but lacks specific kinds of brain function. I’m talking about function, *not* tissue.
“Dont lie.”
I’m not lying. You simply aren’t paying attention to what I wrote.
“If they have brains and they live, then they have brain waves ie brain function.”
Duh. But that brain function develops prenatally around the same time as viability. It does not exist earlier, and if they’re born earlier, then they die (though the lack of a functioning brain is only part of the problem prior to viability).
I was specific: the same kind of brain function that’s assessed in determining brain death. That is, if they’re not exhibiting the kind of activity that would rule out brain death, then they haven’t yet developed the kind of brain activity that I’m talking about. Do you know what kind of brain assessments are carried out in determining brain death, or do you need a reference?
“most of the relevant biological facts go the other way. I have yet to see pro choice advocates bother to admit this.”
Specify all of the biological facts that you consider relevant, and let’s see if you’re right.
I already did specify the facts. The one fact the pro choicers have going for them is that the fetus is literally part of the mothers body before birth. Though separated by the placenta, the unborn life is part of the mother’s body. the fact is what it is. This poses a significant legal fact in our system which places a high legal and social value on a person’s bodily integrity.
And yet. Most everything else points to the biological distinctiveness of the fetus as a separate biological life. They have their own little growing bodies that look like bodies because they are. They have distinct DNA though the amniotic fluid is a swirling bath of the mother and child’s DNA or so I have heard. They are not like a wart or cancer or some spurious growth. not a dermoid cyst, not a teratoma, not a parasitic twin nor a fetus in fetu. Not that such extreme rarities should define any sort of rule.
we really have little to discuss. I have little patience for these conversations. I am not the one worrying either about feminist concerns, nor all the lives they have mercilessly snuffed out in their wombs. I got tired of worrying about that long ago. There is death all around us, we only ignore it like ostriches, as I said yesterday in the context of another subject. .
However, I aim to leave you and the readers with something, interesting.
Here’s a grisly story of an abortionist from SCOTUS nominee Amy’s hometown. Ulrich Klopfer, a very prolific abortionist, who had a fetus collection, yes, a fetus collection, of a couple thousands of corpses of little lives the homicidal specialist snuffed out.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805346734/thousands-of-fetal-remains-found-after-abortion-providers-death-buried-in-indian
“Hill said he believes Klopfer transported the remains from the clinics in Indiana to his home in Illinois. He said his office is still examining records, but he expressed little hope of finding an explanation for Klopfer’s actions.
“In terms of the why … we may never know,” Hill said. “The best evidence of the why certainly died with Dr. Klopfer in September. … There’s no answer for that, and I don’t know that we ever will get an answer for that.”
______________________
Mr Curtis Hill, the AG of Indiana, did not look very hard for the “Why” —
Wikipedia has “Why” under its entry for Ulrich Klopfer
He was a five year old when the Allies terror-bombed the civilians of Dresden and slaughtered over a hundred thousand in one raid. The why?
Obviously, REVENGE on America
“Klopfer was born on August 28, 1940, in Dresden, Germany. He told documentary filmmaker Mark Archer that he was staying with his aunt in the Dresden suburbs when the allies firebombed the city in 1945. Klopfer would have been four and a half years old at the time. This event, Archer noted, seemed to have been the defining moment of Klopfer’s life.[2]”
Kurtz,
Re: “They have their own little growing bodies that look like bodies because they are,” the bodies don’t look particularly human for the first couple of months: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/File:Human_Carnegie_stage_10-23.jpg
Early on, we don’t look that different from other vertebrates:
http://eewevolution.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/6/53468969/6397984_orig.jpg
The majority of those “little bodies” die naturally, often prior to implantation. Perhaps 70% of all fertilized eggs end up dying of natural causes prior to viable birth. For those that continue to develop, it’s because the mother’s lungs provide oxygen and expel CO2, the mother’s gastrointestinal and circulatory systems provide nourishment, etc. Pregnancy always affects the mother’s health, sometimes in relatively small ways (like morning sickness and weight gain) and sometimes in very serious ways (occasionally including death).
“They have distinct DNA”
I agree. But distinct DNA isn’t the most central feature of personhood. Conjoined twins have the same DNA, but they are two people. Conversely, a single person may have two distinct kinds of DNA in their bodies; this can happen when the person is genetically chimeric (because they developed from two embryos that merged instead of developing into fraternal twins) or because the person had a bone marrow transplant. And even in one person who isn’t chimeric, that person’s DNA isn’t 100% identical, due to copy errors (which is why “identical” twins can be distinguished genetically, even though they developed from the same zygote).
The most important feature in determining whether there’s one person vs. two isn’t one vs. two distinct genomes, but one vs. two thinking brains.
“They are not like a wart or cancer or some spurious growth. not a dermoid cyst, not a teratoma, not a parasitic twin nor a fetus in fetu”
I agree. I’d never suggest otherwise.
You said “most of the relevant biological facts,” but you don’t list very many facts.
I see that you’re silent about your having conflated brain *function* with brain *tissue*.
I was stationed with the U.S. Air Force in Berlin around 1970. One time, a local came up to me and started to berate me for the bombing of Vietnam. He said he had been in Dresden when it was bombed. I knew he was right, but I didn’t know what to say to him.
Ask him about Auschwitz, or the Blitz. Or Warsaw. Or stalingrad.
Also, am I allowed to go into the hospital and find the brain dead and start killing them myself without repercussion? Something tells me that, that wouldn’t go over to well.
Conservatives are virtually silent about “Fertility Clinics” – why is that?
1. We’re not
2. We set priorities.
BTW, being “Pro-Choice but Anti-Abortion” means someone thinks it’s wrong but also thinks it should be legal and is not their decision to make for others.
There are lots of analogous situations. For example, one can believe that abhorrent speech still deserves to be protected under the 1st Amendment.
Not if that speech resulted in the death of human life. It is not analogous.
CTHD, I think the biggest issue did folks like Jim and other “pro-life”advocates is the inability to grasp the idea that a decision is not theirs to make. The idea that they have no say in the decision of a complete stranger is unbearable or just immoral. These are the very same people who loath government telling them what to do or how to live. The very same people who insist on determining who they should should have the right to marry by government fiat.
This is not about morality as much as it is about controlling someone else decisions so they can feel better about their own conscience knowing that there nobody doing what they don’t think others should be doing despite being adamant about others not telling THEM what they should be doing. It’s hugely hypocritical in my opinion
I will absolutely agree that no one right or left can tell you what to do with YOUR body.
But a pregnancy is NOT your body. It does not share your DNA. It is not you. It is an independent creature – even if you will not afford it the rights of a human. We do not allow people to indiscriminantly kill dogs and cats either.
Whatever you want to call it – you want that other creature out of your womb – that is your absolute right. And if removing it results in its death – so be it. But that does not give you the right to kill it.
Your body your choice – not your body, not your choice. The pregnancy is NOT your body. It is IN your body. Not the same.
DNA isn’t what determines independence.
Nope, magic does.
Regardless it is not lack of dependence that is the issue. It is a distinctly unique identity.
Whether a fetus is a parasite or not, it is IN the mother. It is not if the mother. It is not a kidney or muscle. It is a distinct being.
This thread is an abortion. You folks need to stop
Life begins at conception: physiology, biochemistry, genetics, hormonally, enzymatically…all start immediately when the sperm and ovum fuse. For all the idiots using viability as an argument, Stop pretending you are showing any intellectual rigor. No trauma patients are viable. We treat them anyways because they show signs of life.
Speaking of intellectual rigor, me thinks Peter Shill has the virus. Foaming at the mouth, attacking anything that comes in its presence, rabid behavior, unpredictable,
In foreign countries Rabies Animals are shot. Peter in which country do you reside?
😀
Life doesn’t not begin at conception, Estovir. The unfertilized egg and sperm are themselves alive, just like most other cells in your body. If they weren’t alive, the sperm would not be able to swim to the egg, the sperm would not be able to penetrate the cell wall of egg, the egg’s plasma membrane wouldn’t be able to transform to block penetration by other sperm, and so forth.
And your claim that “No trauma patients are viable” is nonsense. Viable means capable of living with medical support. Many trauma patients are capable of living with medical support.
at 20 weeks a fetus is viable – capable of living with medical support.
John,
Viability is a ridiculous metric. As we have seen, pro-choice advocates take definitions to extremes. Roe v Wade created a legal opening where fetal viability became the standard. How long before viability is no longer restricted to fetal, but post-birth? This is something that is already being debated. If viability is the baseline metric, then be prepared for abortion activists to continue moving it towards the extreme. After all, even a healthy child is not viable outside the womb on it’s own. And the only thing standing in the way of considering post-birth abortion acceptable is a society’s morality.
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
“John,
Viability is a ridiculous metric.”
I agree, and it is the biggest flaw in Roe.
Roe should have stick to law, not science.
The law is easy – the fetus and the woman are distinct creatures.
Even if the fetus is a fully developed human with all attendant rights, the woman is still entitled to demand an end to its dependance on her body. But she can not murder it to remove it. However should its death be the result that might not be pleasant, but it is legal, it fits with natural rights.
That said those on the left are arguing viability – and today a 24 week fetus is viable, and possible a 20 week fetus and as things advance viability will be ever earlier.
I would further note the whole fight over Roe is ludicrously stupid.
Data from Gutmacher – you know the PP data source, indicates that late abortions are mostly the result of procrastination.
There will be little change in the totla number of abortions should late abortions be restricted. Abortions will just occur when the same women run up against an earlier deadline.
It is actually disturbing that in an era where we have myrads of ways of preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy cheaply immediately after conception such as the morning after pill that we have so many women waiting until late in the pregancy to have and abortion.
Regardless this is all much ado about nothing.
Even if the fetus is a fully developed human with all attendant rights, the woman is still entitled to demand an end to its dependance on her body. But she can not murder it to remove it. However should its death be the result that might not be pleasant, but it is legal, it fits with natural rights.
If I’m unpacking this correctly, this is where we should address the responsible exercise of the natural right to choose whether to take on a dependent or not. This is also where viability proves to be a horrendous threshold. In reality, true viability doesn’t occur for years after birth. The viability barrier has proven to be no barrier at all and the only thing (so far) standing in the way of outright infanticide is a society not yet prepared to accept it.
I do not disagree with you – but that is an independent topic.
Men are not biologically obligated to bear children.
But they are legally obligated to support the children they fathered.
A woman’s absolute right to have a fetus removed from her body does not speak to whether she would be forced to provide is support.
Our existing laws would likely result in the woman paying child support to whoever took responsibility for the fetus.
What I am looking to address is a means of deaing with abortion that is consistent with centuries of common law and with long held legal principles.
I am not looking to get into the religious issues of pro-life or pro-choice
I beleive it is already fairly well legally established that if you procreate you become legally responsible for the resulting child.
All I am dealing with is whether you have the absolute right to have it removed from your body.
And you do.
I do not care about viability – if the fetus can not survive even with help – then it dies. If it can – then the parents are responsible to provide for it until it can do so itself. That is well established law.
John,
Here’s a great article out today in the Federalist on this subject:
The University of Iowa study found that infants born at 22 weeks received potential lifesaving treatment at fewer than one in four hospitals. Almost all hospitals, researchers found, will treat infants born at 25 weeks, but there is substantial variation among hospitals on whether they actively treat infants born between those two periods, at 23 or 24 weeks. And few hospitals, if any, will outright tell parents before giving birth how at many weeks they consider a premature infant “viable.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/08/mom-of-premature-twins-who-were-left-to-die-calls-trumps-born-alive-e-o-a-glimmer-of-hope/
This is sickening! Anyone who supports this should be required to watch infants like this die and then document what they saw and why they support it. How does a mother get over this hearing he infant twins crying and receiving no medical help to save them. Its much cheaper for hospitals to just give palliative care and not life saving care. It is also much less costly for the Medicaid programs that cover preemie care than if the infant lives.
It’s heartbreaking. This is where we are headed with our increasingly nihilistic culture.
As you noted – viability is not really relevant and never should have been part of Roe.
Ultimatelhy it will make all abortion illegal if that is your standard.
“Life begins at conception”
That should be the understanding even in those that have no problem in killing life. The question is what is the best way to avoid such killing that will be acceptable and adhered to by most of the population. Anything else leads to a higher rate of killing. It may be a partial compromise with the devil but sometimes compromise is required.
The premise was that the female Christian pastor was literally a real “Small Government Conservative” and didn’t support a foreign nanny-state model of government – where a politician plays the parental role over citizens’ freedom of choice. She didn’t believe the government should involved in every part of a person’s freedom of choice.
If women can vote and run households, then they can choose for themselves. They have to bear responsibility for the consequences, not the government official. A similar issue is “Fertility Clinics”. Why is there no spotlight on IVF fertilization practices?
Why is Turley discussing this as if Roe is the only relevant SCOTUS ruling? SCOTUS has ruled on abortion multiple times, including Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Gonzalez v. Carhart. IIRR, Casey is currently the ruling precedent, not Roe.
First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.
I agree, especially since he is a law professor!
This comment is in the wrong place — agree with Commit to Honest discussion above regarding the need to discuss cases after Roe.
CTHD: “Why is Turley discussing this as if Roe is the only relevant SCOTUS ruling? ”
****
Because everyone recognizes Roe and understands that there is an issue involving the Supreme Court and abortion. Saying ‘Roe v. Wade’ brings in people who grasp the basic idea but don’t follow the subsequent case law.
It’s sad to think that a guy who spent 50 years in elected government and swears and oath to “support and the Constitution” doesn’t even understand the way it works. This has been the Dems MO for the last 4 decades.
“As with the court packing scheme, this new position raises questions over how Biden views fundamental constitutional values and powers.”
Oh please, professor.
You know. I know. EVERYBODY knows that Biden views the constitution as merely an obstacle to his power.
The real question is why that’s acceptable.
The Dems love to kill their unborn children (except for some like Ralph Northam who want to kill those already born – though he will keep them comfortable).
Ugly people.
Ralph Northan is going to help turn Virginia red in November. Watch as all the good old boys come out to vote in droves to repudiate the racist little tyrant Governor blackface/klan hood Northam.
Northam is term-limited and not up for reelection.
Even on his way out, the failed governor has fired up the voters to come out and vote.
Your point?
Trump is the one who views the constitution as merely an obstacle to his power.
First, apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup. Then and only then should we move on to your next disastrous, false allegation. We may even find a moment for this bs.
I don’t take orders from you, and only a Trump sycophant could look at a video of Trump literally saying “I have the right to do whatever I want as President” and suggest that it’s a “false allegation”.
Trump has a record of doing what he said he would do.
No, he has record of lying a lot more than the typical politician.
That is easily verified. List the most important campaign promises made by Trump while campaigning against Hillary Clinton. Then put a check mark next to each promise if he fulfilled in in part or in full or if he tried but was stopped by democrats.
You won’t do that because Trump would have a check mark next to most if not all on that list. Then compare it to other Presidents.
That will prove you to be a liar or ignorant. Choose your poison.
The media is not going to press Biden on anything.
Info For. America can have millions more children. Canada and Mexico will have to build up walls to keep American migrants out.