Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Voice of America" channel.

  1. 36
  2. The argument in Roe v Wade wasn't really sound. Somewhat like the current roster (only in the other direction), SCOTUS '73 had already decided they were going to legalize abortion before the case even got there. In their hurry to get it done, they literally just looked for an argument that seemed legit and ran with it. They happened to pick one of the weakest... It only stayed on the books so long because no justices were interested in going through the madness that would come if they overturned it. Even the late Justice Ginsberg warned people that the original argument was not sound and would be overturned eventually. No one listened. If all people are interested in for the time being is simply getting rid of the bans (rather than acheiving a direct right to abortion,) challenging the state bans (at least up to 24 weeks) on the grounds that they violate the 13th amendment's protection against involuntary servitude is the best way to approach it. There are hundreds if not thousands of rulings from many levels of our courts where a woman carrying and giving birth are considered a form of work (she gets the final say because she's the one who will have to do the work of carrying and giving birth style arguments.) If it's work then the 13th applies. If the 13th applies, the 10th amendment can't and SCOTUS no longer has constitutional grounds to send the issue to the states. SCOTUS might still overrule that argument, but they'll likely have to pull their rebuttal directly from their backsides to do so. At that point, it will be clear to all that they are ruling based on personal/political/religious reasons not the constitution...and that will be the end of what little legitimacy SCOTUS has left. I doubt they're delusional or arrogant enough to destroy the court's integrity any more than they already have. Well...maybe Thomas.
    34
  3. 9
  4. 8
  5. 6
  6. 5
  7. 4
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. Yes. Even Russian investigators... multiple times. No evidence of weapons programs or other sinister activities have ever been found. It would take too long to go into full detail but you can google the Nunn-Lugar program and the origin, history, and purpose of their existence should be easy to piece together from there. Otherwise... Long story slightly less long, such labs exist in many of the ex-Soviet countries. They were originally Soviet biolabs used for the study and tracking of infectious diseases in their respective areas with some involved with the Soviet bioweapons programs at times. When the USSR fell, the US funded a program using those labs as part of the process of cleaning up/destroying any bio/chem weapons and other biohazards left behind by the Soviets. Once complete, some were then upgraded to modern medical facilities while others went back to the study and tracking of infectious diseases in their areas. The latter being partially funded by the US. The goal being giving those countries the ability to assess such threats and how to respond to them on their own so they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on other countries/organizations for such information which would in turn allow them faster response times to such threats. There have been multiple investigations of the lab(s) by all sorts of organizations/countries (Russia included) and no evidence of weapons programs etc. has been found. When you backtrace the claims, most lead to Qanon and similar conspiracy theory groups with no actual supporting evidence. Also, despite Russian investigations finding nothing, Comrade Putin has continued to make such claims over the years. Usually in support of military actions he has taken. Again with no supporting evidence.
    1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1