Examining the top contenders on Trump's Supreme Court list

[Dos Equis]

Announcement (and fight) coming soon. 

Examining the top contenders on Trump's Supreme Court list
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Tue January 24, 2017

Judges Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman have joined William Pryor and Diane Sykes at the top of Trump's list
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump has made clear he's winnowed down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees -- and may be days away from making the announcement.

Trump himself said on the campaign trail that he would look at judges William Pryor and Diane Sykes as top contenders, and has touted his list of 20 possible choices from conservative legal circles. Sources close to the search say as things stand now, Judge Neil Gorsuch has emerged on top of the list as well as Judge Thomas Hardiman.

The President will discuss the Supreme Court vacancy Tuesday afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, McConnell announced.

"I appreciate the President soliciting our advice on this important matter," McConnell said.
However, Trump may have already made his choice.

"I think in my mind I know who it is," Trump said during a luncheon at his hotel Thursday with Republicans, according to cell phone video of the event obtained by CNN. "I think you're going to be very, very excited."

In recent weeks, the search has intensified as lawyers and outside groups have joined the effort pouring through legal briefs, opinions, articles and congressional transcripts.

The decision will all come down to a calculation by top staff weighing the judge and the current court against a series of factors including his or her record, age and background.

A look at four of those on the top of the list reveal arguments that Trump will weigh both for and against.

William Pryor
Trump knows, for example, that if he picks Pryor, he is asking for a fight with Senate Democrats. Pryor sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and he is a dream candidate for many conservatives. He's called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, an "abomination." He's a committed member of the Federalist Society, and in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning.

"I am a conservative, and I believe in the strict separation of governmental powers," Pryor wrote in 1997 when he was attorney general of Alabama. "Courts should not resolve political problems."

Pryor has faced the Senate gauntlet before.

In 2004, Democrats blocked his confirmation to the appellate court, and it was only in June 2005 that he was officially confirmed by a vote of 53-45.
But despite Pryor's record, some conservatives have questioned an opinion he joined that they perceive as expanding transgender rights.

Neil Gorsuch
Gorsuch, who sits on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Colorado, has never called Roe an abomination. In fact, he's never had the occasion to write an opinion addressing Roe.

That might disappoint some who want to make sure that he wouldn't surprise them on the issue.

But he's become a favored candidate in part because of his opinions on religious liberty including one he joined siding with closely held corporations who believed that the so-called contraceptive mandate of Obamacare violated their religious beliefs.

And on more than one occasion, he's aligned himself with Scalia. In the weeks after Scalia's death last year, Gorsuch gave a talk emphasizing that "the great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators."
Trump might conclude that Gorsuch could sidestep a major fight in Congress.

Or not. Liberals are still seething mad that Republican senators failed to hold hearings for former President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, and could take it out on Gorsuch, or anyone else Trump picks.

"Those of us who believe that Merrick Garland was improperly denied a vote and also recognize that the majority of the American people voted for Hillary Clinton are going to refuse a nominee who moves the court in such a a right wing direction," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society. It is unclear if progressives would accept any of Trump's nominees that have been a part of his current list.

Diane Sykes
Sykes hails from Wisconsin, a critical state during the last election and home to Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

A former journalist, she flexed her interviewing skills in 2013 by sitting down with Justice Clarence Thomas for a talk to discuss his jurisprudence. She won over the room during the event -- hosted by the Federalist Society -- for showcasing Thomas' personality in an interview that at times brought down the house.

Just last week Sykes issued an opinion striking three provisions of Chicago regulations meant to govern shooting ranges. It was a follow up opinion from one she penned in 2011 that enjoined Chicago's ban on firing ranges within city limits. Both opinions are peppered with references to Scalia's landmark Second Amendment opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller.

Sykes would bring another woman to the Court. She would be the fifth woman ever named, the second from a Republican candidate. But Trump could calculate that it would make more sense to save her for the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should she ever retire.

Sykes is also 59 years old, and some court watchers think that Trump might prefer someone younger.

Thomas Hardiman
Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, is almost a decade younger at 51 and offers Trump a compelling personal story.

Hardiman hails from a blue collar family in Massachusetts and was the first in his family to graduate from college, driving a cab to help pay his bills. Hardiman is not product of the Ivy League having attended Notre Dame and Georgetown.

Those close to him think that Trump might appreciate Hardiman's dry wit and the fact that while he is persuasive he doesn't take over a room.
Like Sykes, Hardiman referred to Heller several times in a dissent he penned in 2013 in a case concerning gun licenses.

The opposition of Hardiman has been relatively muted and Ian Millhiser of the progressive Think Progress has written that he is "one of the more ideologically enigmatic names on Trump's list." Such a sentiment could scare away conservatives who do not want a dark horse candidate.

Conservatives believe that George H.W. Bush missed an opportunity to shape the court when he named a relative unknown -- David Souter -- to the bench. Rather than helping create a conservative legacy, Souter became a reliable vote for the left. Some might question whether Hardiman has a robust enough record to scour and get Republicans excited.

If Trump needed a personal reference, however, he'd only need to reach out to his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who sits on the same appellate bench.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-supreme-court-nomination-search/index.html

[Dos Equis]

Trump set to make Supreme Court choice this week, short list down to three
By  Bill Mears 
Published January 24, 2017
FoxNews.com
 
After an 11-month political standstill on filling the Supreme Court vacancy, the wait may be worth it for conservative activists eager to see President Trump choose a like-minded nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

According to Trump, the decision is coming soon.

"I'll be making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week," Trump said, after meeting Tuesday with Senate leaders from both parties to discuss the vacancy. "We'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice."

This, as sources close to the selection process tell Fox News the list of possible candidates is now down to three names, all of them federal appeals court judges: Judge William Pryor in Alabama, Judge Neil Gorsuch in Colorado, and Judge Thomas Hardiman in Pennsylvania.

Trump has met personally with all three, sources say.

Trump said at a press conference last week before he took office that a decision would come within two weeks of his being sworn in. Press Secretary Sean Spicer reinforced that rough timeline on Monday, saying the nomination remains a "priority."

The three judges in play were all on the original list of 21 candidates Trump announced as a presidential candidate last year, and supporters tout their conservative credentials:

-- Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Birmingham, Ala.

Pryor is close to Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions, the Alabama senator. Born in 1962, he was initially given a recess appointment to the appeals court. Senate Democrats then tried to block Pryor's subsequent nominations, citing his strong criticism of the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion. He called it the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

-- Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Denver

Born 1967, he went to Harvard Law School, then clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He went into private practice in Washington before joining the Bush Justice Department. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female administrator at the EPA. Gorsuch wrote the book "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia."

His name has been rising in Trump's circle in recent weeks.

-- Judge Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Pittsburgh

Born 1965, he saw the Supreme Court affirm his 2010 ruling that a jail policy of strip-searching all those arrested does not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." Hardiman sits on the same court as Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who despite the family ties is not being considered for any high court vacancy.

The fact Hardiman did not attend an Ivy League school (as a Notre Dame undergrad and Georgetown Law grad) may appeal to Trump's populist leanings, as could the fact he drove a taxi to finance his education.

Three other federal appeals court judges touted by their supporters include Diane Sykes, based in Wisconsin, Judge Raymond Kethledge of Michigan and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.

All are appointees of George W. Bush, a sign that judicial picks can have a far-reaching impact years, even decades, after presidents leaving elected office. Federal judges serve for life, and seven of the eight current justices all served in lower federal appeals courts.

Some state supreme court justices are on Trump's broader list of 21, but sources say federal judges have a proven record of cases from which to vet, and the fact they have been through a congressional confirmation before is an advantage.     

Trump's outreach with Senate leaders follows Vice President Pence's more low-key meeting with two moderate Democrats last week.

White House officials see Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana as key to ensuring a filibuster-proof majority to confirm what is sure to be a conservative choice.

"Today was really about talking about our legislative agenda, but also meeting with members of the Senate to get their input on the President's decision about filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court," Pence said after his meetings.

But Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he is prepared to fight.

"Let's see who they nominate," he said earlier this month. "If they're in the mainstream we'll give them a very careful look. If they're out of the mainstream we'll oppose them tooth and nail."

Feelings remain raw among many on the left, after President Obama's choice to replace Scalia languished without Senate action, part of a deliberate move by Republicans to wait out the president’s term. Judge Merrick Garland this month returned to his old job on the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court.

A go-slow approach could complicate the White House's goal of seating a justice by mid-April when the last oral arguments of the term would begin.

White House Counsel Don McGahn is leading the vetting process, with input from senior administration legal and political advisers, including Sessions. Outside conservative advisers include Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and Jim DeMint of the Heritage Foundation.               

Sources close to the selection process did not rule out other names being added late in what has emerged as a fast-moving, dynamic process.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-set-to-make-supreme-court-choice-this-week-several-judges-on-short-list.html

[Howard]

Some excellent info posted here on this key issue coming up soon. Thanks!

I understand the basic reason(s) for those who are pro-life.
I happen to be pro-choice and don't think the law should get involved
with a woman's reproductive choices.

BUT, the republicans won big in this election and many of them are bible believing pro lifers.
So, it's to be expected Trump would pick a pro life judge.

[Pray_4_War]

I like this snippet pulled from the LA Times.

In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

[Dos Equis]

I like this snippet pulled from the LA Times.

In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Here is the article:

Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia's Supreme Court seat
By David G. Savage
January 24, 2017 |Reporting from Washington

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a highly regarded conservative jurist best known for upholding religious liberty rights in the legal battles over Obamacare, has emerged as a leading contender for President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination.

Gorsuch, 49, was among 21 potential high court candidates circulated by Trump’s team during the campaign, but his stock has been rising lately as several admirers and supporters have been named to positions in the Trump administration.

He currently serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. A former clerk for Justice Byron White, also a Colorado native, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.

In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
 
Just as importantly, Gorsuch is seen as someone who might be more easily confirmed in the Senate. Unlike other appointees of President George W. Bush, Gorsuch won an easy Senate confirmation on a voice vote in 2006.

"He is very bright, well-respected and quite personable," said John Malcolm, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation. "And there's no question he would not be as contentious as some others."

Until recently, the two top contenders for the first Supreme Court nomination by Trump were believed to be Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, who serves on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, and Judge Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, who serves on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court in Chicago. Trump mentioned them in a Republican debate after Scalia died.

Pryor appeared to have an edge because he is a protege of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney general. Pryor has been an outspoken critic of abortion rights and gay rights, which won him admirers on the right, but also made him a target for liberals and Democrats. He once described the Roe vs. Wade decision as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”

While attacks from liberals would be expected, Pryor has also drawn criticism from some activists on the right. In 2011, he signed on to an 11th Circuit opinion by liberal Judge Rosemary Barkett upholding a sex-discrimination complaint filed by a transgender state employee in Georgia. The worker was hired as a man but was fired after returning as a woman. In a 3-0 decision in Glenn vs. Brumby, the 11th Circuit concluded it is unconstitutional “sex-based discrimination” to fire a state employee “because of his or her gender nonconformity.”

Leonard Leo, an executive vice president of the Federalist Society and an advisor to the Trump team, said in a broadcast interview that Pryor was following legal precedents. But the decision has been cited by some on the right as grounds for opposing him.

Perhaps as a result, several other prominent conservative judges like Gorsuch are getting more attention.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that Democrats would fight hard to stop court nominees who were not “bipartisan and mainstream.”

Pryor’s past comments on abortion and gay rights would almost certainly fuel a confirmation fight. When President George W. Bush nominated him to the 11th Circuit in 2003, Democrats used the filibuster rule to block a vote. Bush then put him in the post temporarily through a recess appointment. He finally won confirmation on a 53-45 vote in 2005 as part of a bipartisan Senate deal led by the so-called Gang of 14.

By contrast, Gorsuch does not have a record of strident comments that would fuel a confirmation fight.

However, he knows firsthand the rough side of political battles. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a conservative Colorado state legislator and a states’ rights advocate when President Reagan chose her in 1981 to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. She was soon caught up in battles with environmentalists and Democrats on Capitol Hill for allegedly going soft on polluters. She was held in contempt of Congress in 1983 for refusing to turn over documents.

She said she had followed the legal advice of the Justice Department. Nonetheless, she was forced to resign in 1983 because the White House saw her as a political distraction. She returned to Colorado and died in 2004.

Neil Gorsuch was educated at a prep school in Maryland and has degrees from Columbia University, Harvard Law School and Oxford University, where he earned a doctorate in legal philosophy.

His best-known opinions grew out of the dispute over the Obama administration’s regulation requiring employers to provide female employees with the full range of contraceptives as part of their health insurance.

Catholic groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the evangelical Christian family who owned the Hobby Lobby craft stores sued and sought a religious exemption from paying for contraceptives that they said could “destroy a fertilized human egg.”

Both cases ended up in the 10th Circuit, and Gorsuch voiced support for the religious claimants.

“All of us face the problem of complicity,” he wrote in the Hobby Lobby case. And government should not force people with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to be complicit in “conduct their religion teaches them to be gravely wrong.” The Supreme Court reached the same decision by a 5-4 vote in 2014.

Shortly before he became a judge, Gorsuch wrote a book for Princeton University Press, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” which reviewed the history and the legal arguments for and against permitting people to have help in ending their lives. He concluded arguing for “retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia … based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

[mazrim]

BUT, the republicans won big in this election and many of them are bible believing pro lifers.

Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.

[Pray_4_War]

Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.

Bingo.

[Howard]

Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.

I understand that point of view.

BUT, why are so many of them ALSO against many forms of contraception?

[Howard]

Bingo.

Question of legal abortion and Roe V Wade.

How does the SCOTUS over turn this, even with a majority of conservatives.

1. The SCOTUS is a court appeals. So, a person needs to commit an act , appeal the decision at each level and eventually get it heard in the highest court of appeals , the SCOTUS.

2. Plus, to bring a case, you need standing , or be directly involved.

Ok, here's my thinking.

When Roe V Wade was decided it gave the right of woman to have a legal abortion.

Right now, having an abortion, especially during the 1st trimester is legal.
It's also established that nobody can legally force a woman to have an abortion.

If a woman wants to get an abortion she does. If not, she doesn't.
According to the 14th amendment , the one person with legal standing on
having an abortion ( or not) is the pregnant woman.

Since nobody can legally force a woman to have an abortion, how
does the Supreme Ct even hear a case to overturn in?

[Pray_4_War]

I understand that point of view.

BUT, why are so many of them ALSO against many forms of contraception?

I don't know.  Wish I did. 

Human beings love to fuck, no shame in helping them not make unwanted babies that they can't or won't raise properly.

However, once you get pregnant it's not ok to chop the babies up and vacuum them out of your snatch.

[Erik C]

I don't know.  Wish I did. 

Human beings love to fuck, no shame in helping them not make unwanted babies that they can't or won't raise properly.

However, once you get pregnant it's not ok to chop the babies up and vacuum them out of your snatch.

Irresponsible dirtballs, who make unwanted babies, that they can't or won't raise properly, should be forced to have abortions, because genetically that baby would be just as worthless as it garbage parents, so it is better to cut it out and throw it out, before it becomes a social burden, social problem, or a threat to society.

To improve the race, you cull the race of its lowest elements, by any means possible. Aborting garbage excuses for human beings is a plus to humanity.

[Erik C]

Irresponsible dirtballs, who make unwanted babies, that they can't or won't raise properly, should be forced to have abortions, because genetically that baby would be just as worthless as it garbage parents, so it is better to cut it out and throw it out, before it becomes a social burden, social problem, or a threat to society.

To improve the race, you cull the race of its lowest elements, by any means possible. Aborting garbage excuses for human beings is a plus to humanity.

It's amazing that no one wants to post about abortion, when the the emotional claptrap is outed as nonsense, and the reality of the positive effects of abortion are clearly stated.

[Irongrip400]

Where is Guliani in all of this? How did he just fade away?

[Dos Equis]

It's amazing that no one wants to post about abortion, when the the emotional claptrap is outed as nonsense, and the reality of the positive effects of abortion are clearly stated.

Perhaps nobody is talking about it because that whole eugenics angle is stupid. 

[Dos Equis]

Trump says he's 'pretty much' made his decision on Supreme Court nominee
Published January 26, 2017
FoxNews.com

President Trump, in an extensive interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity set to air Thursday night, said he’s mostly made up his mind on a Supreme Court nominee.

“I have made my decision pretty much in my mind, yes. That's subject to change at the last moment, but I think this will be a great choice,” Trump said.

The cable exclusive interview with Trump will air Thursday night at 10 p.m. ET on Fox News’ “Hannity.”

The president addressed his Supreme Court pick deliberations after announcing he plans to unveil his choice next Thursday.

Fox News previously reported that Trump, according to sources, has narrowed down his short list to a handful of names, with Judge Neil Gorsuch in Colorado and Judge Thomas Hardiman in Pennsylvania thought to be at the top of the list.

Sources said Trump met personally with those judges, as well as Judge William Pryor in Alabama.

Trump, in the interview with Fox News, also ripped Democrats threatening to hold up his eventual nominee – and said he would want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to use the so-called “nuclear option” if they filibuster. 

“I would. We have obstructionists,” Trump said, complaining about Democrats’ treatment of other nominees, including Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions. The “nuclear option,” if pursued, would in this case allow majority Republicans to seek approval of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee with just a simple majority, as opposed to a 60-vote threshold.

Trump covered a range of other topics in the interview, including his goal of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. He called the program a “horror show” and a “disaster.”   

“You don't have your doctor, you don’t have your plan, you have a 116 percent increase, like in Arizona, it's a disaster. It's going to be worse this year than it was last year,” he said. “… It doesn't work. And President Obama told me something that was, I thought, terrific. And I believe he means it. He said, if you came up with a better plan, and you could get a better plan approved, he would support it. And I actually believe he means it. I do believe we're going to have a much better plan, we're going to have a cheaper plan, I think it's going to be a lot less expensive.”

Trump also vowed to take on terror groups in his role as commander-in-chief, speaking in blunt terms about the threat they pose.

“We have evil that lurks around the corner without the uniforms. Ours is harder because the people we're going against they don't wear uniforms. They're sneaky, dirty rats and they blow people up in a shopping center and they blow people up in a church. These are bad people,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/trump-says-hes-pretty-much-made-his-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html

[Erik C]

Perhaps nobody is talking about it because that whole eugenics angle is stupid. 

Good breeding is stupid?

Tell that to agriculture. You want to get better crops and farm animals, you breed them for the good traits you want to get, and don't let the ones with bad traits breed at all.

Works for people too. Good breeding is all that eugenics is really.

[Dos Equis]

Good breeding is stupid?

Tell that to agriculture. You want to get better crops and farm animals, you breed them for the good traits you want to get, and don't let the ones with bad traits breed at all.

Works for people too. Good breeding is all that eugenics is really.

Ridiculous comparison.  People are not plants.

Killing babies that you don't believe are smart enough is immoral.  And (like I previously said) stupid.   

[Erik C]

Ridiculous comparison.  People are not plants.

Killing babies that you don't believe are smart enough is immoral.  And (like I previously said) stupid.    

People are animals, and we've been breeding animals for millenia.

Your sense of morality is flawed. Your "values" are weak.

Aborting defective and inferior fetuses is of huge benefit to society, and for the betterment of humanity.

Allowing those of low intelligence, and/or savage behavior to successfully breed, is a deficit to society and humanity in general.

Making abortion mandatory for welfare bums and illegal aliens, would bring nothing but good to our country.

Your moralistic clap-trap has done nothing but continually ruin, and bring down society, and hinder human progress.

You want all the garbage babies that are being born every day, instead of being cut out and thrown out, as the filthy garbage that they really are, then how about all you stupid anti-abortionists step up to the plate, and pay for all these garbage babies you claim to care so much about. Why should the taxpayers be handed the bill for the babies they didn't make, and don't want.? That's your hypocrisy.

[Dos Equis]

People are animals, and we've been breeding animals for millenia.

Your sense of morality is flawed. Your "values" are weak.

Aborting defective and inferior fetuses is of huge benefit to society, and for the betterment of humanity.

Allowing those of low intelligence, and/or savage behavior to successfully breed, is a deficit to society and humanity in general.

Making abortion mandatory for welfare bums and illegal aliens, would bring nothing but good to our country.

Your moralistic clap-trap has done nothing but continually ruin, and bring down society, and hinder human progress.

You want all the garbage babies that are being born every day, instead of being cut out and thrown out, as the filthy garbage that they really are, then how about all you stupid anti-abortionists step up to the plate, and pay for all these garbage babies you claim to care so much about. Why should the taxpayers be handed the bill for the babies they didn't make, and don't want.? That's your hypocrisy.

No, people are not animals and should not be treated like animals. 

Your views are isolated to a handful of dummies, but let me humor you for a minute.  How exactly do we implement this form of eugenics?  Forced abortions?  What is the criteria for selecting those who will be forced to abort their babies? 

[Erik C]

Humans are animals, mammals in fact.

It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.

Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.

If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.

[Skeeter]

Humans are animals, mammals in fact.

It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.

Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.

If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.

Your mother should have been sterilized you piece of shit.

[Erik C]

Your mother should have been sterilized you piece of shit.

Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.

[Skeeter]

Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.

It's your criteria dipshit. You said low IQ.

[Dos Equis]

Humans are animals, mammals in fact.

It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.

Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.

If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.

Ok.  So the class of people subject to forced abortions include: "known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert."

What is the IQ threshold? 

What mental illnesses will be included? 

Are all drugs included in the "drug addict" category?  For example, everything from prescription drugs to cocaine? 

Are all alcoholics included? 

Which government agency will be responsible for enforcing these mandatory abortions? 

[Dos Equis]

Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.

The thing about people who are really intelligent is they don't have to tell people they are really intelligent.  And they don't try and claim to be superior to anyone else.  That's an intelligence hallmark.