Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 14, 2014

An Ohio appeals court has upheld a judge's order that a father can't have more children until he pays his back child support for his four children. If Asim Taylor violates the order he will be sent to prison for a year. Judge Donna Carr ruled, "Taylor has here demonstrated that he is not inclined to support any of his children. There is no reason to believe that he would be inclined to support any future children."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Have we reached the point where right-wingers are no longer outraged by the government deciding how many kids we can have?

Maybe they're okay with it so long as it's not the Federal government.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

No way this is a Constitutional order. If it is, we live in a fascist nation under a fascist constitution.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-14 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bailiff, whack his peepee!"

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

#2
If Obamacare is constitutional then anything is constitutional.

#4 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If Obamacare is constitutional then anything is constitutional."

I'm not sure the Constitution is constitutional these days.

#5 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-14 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Moder, have you seen the birthrates south of the Rio Grande? Do you know the populations of Mexico D.F. and Sao Paulo? Do you know how many kids are living in poverty in these countries? Freedom comes with responsibility. This loser does have the latter and doesn't deserve the former.

#6 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-14 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Manditory vasectomy!

Matter of fact, more vasectomies for all!

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-14 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2
If Obamacare is constitutional then anything is constitutional.

#4 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT AT 2014-05-14 02:38 PM | FLAG: Posting without his daily medication, again.

#8 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-05-14 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why don't they just put him under house arrest where he can only go to work until he pays it back. They they can keep him in the state, prevent him from reproducing, at least mostly, and a nice garnish would make sure the money is coming in.

#9 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-05-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only one way to guarantee this outcome, vasectomy.

#10 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-05-14 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bailiff, whack his peepee!"

ROTFL!

That does beg the question.

How are they going to enforce this ruling?

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-14 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

No way this is a Constitutional order.

The order was one of the conditions of criminal probation. Do you disagree with the concurring opinion's observation that "...convicted individuals do not enjoy the same degree of liberty as citizens who have not violated the law[]" and that "...liberty enjoyed by a probationer is, under any view, a conditional liberty..." and therefore "...conditions of probation may impinge upon constitutional rights as long as they are not overly broad and are reasonably related to the person's rehabilitation."

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-14 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 Vasectomy?

Baby step. Go right to castration. That'll learn him!

#13 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-05-14 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have we reached the point where right-wingers are no longer outraged by the government deciding how many kids we can have?
Maybe they're okay with it so long as it's not the Federal government.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag?

Exactly, just not the federal government. States and local governments are were the bulk of government authority should reside, consitutionally speaking

#14 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-14 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

How are they going to enforce this ruling?

They can't enforce it by preventing him from getting somebody pregnant. But if he does, they can throw him in jail for a year.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-14 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Typical anti-Christian move, preventing this poor soul from going out, being fruitful and multiplying, as the Good Lord commanded First Man 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. (That was before First Man and Fallen Woman up and moved to Adam-ondi-Ahman, five miles south of Jameson, Missouri.)

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-05-14 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is it exactly they are ordering? This guy is very likely a loser, whose intent was to have sex. not Children. Children were just the unfortunate by product. Sort of like how drinking alcohol causes a hangover. So, couldn't the guy claim he was not intentionally having kids, while cranking out many more as the unintended consequence of sex? Can they force him to have a vasectomy?

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-14 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They can't enforce it by preventing him from getting somebody pregnant. But if he does, they can throw him in jail for a year."

Oh good.

PS Doc he already has multiplied along with his wife by two.

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-14 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought proggies were against the government getting involved in another person's reproductive rights?

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-14 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No way this is a Constitutional order.
#2 | Posted by moder8"

What clause do you think it violates?

#20 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-05-14 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, you're joking, but I would be shocked if an effective (I refuse to say "good") lawyer couldn't pull exactly that argument off as an attack on religious freedom and first amendment rights.

#21 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-14 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#21

You're right, if one ignores the law. See #12.

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-14 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

i thought this guy had to be ugly as sin; he ain't, but he is most definitely a Playa and no doubt 3rd World mentality (reproductive prevention & children 100% the woman's responsibility). The ladies fighting over this pretty baby daddy, but then expect a breadwinner in the (unspoken) bargain.

#23 | Posted by kenx at 2014-05-15 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

So why should the women be responsible, Baby Mama is a OK living in a world run by progressives.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefit Calculator
www.ndhealth.gov

Cash Assistance

To qualify for cash assistance, you must:
have a minor child who lives with you, or you must be a pregnant woman.
Income amounts change frequently. For example, a family of 4 can have a take home income of $861 a month and still qualify for cash assistance. The maximum monthly amount for a family of four is $507.
www.ohiolegalservices.org

Section 8 housing
www.needhelppayingbills.com

#24 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-15 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort