MUScoop

MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 01:30:55 PM

Title: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 01:30:55 PM
We can’t come up with some common sense gun laws because “Second Amendment” and “protect the constitution.”

But then we’ll overturn Row v. Wade.

Lock this up if you want. Just so fed up with the lack of common sense and empathy in this country. It’s baffling how we’ll twist ourselves into pretzels just to keep power where it has been forever, rather than do what’s best for all people.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 24, 2022, 01:38:22 PM
We can’t come up with some common sense gun laws because “Second Amendment” and “protect the constitution.”

But then we’ll overturn Row v. Wade.

Lock this up if you want. Just so fed up with the lack of common sense and empathy in this country. It’s baffling how well twist ourselves into pretzels just to keep power where it has been forever, rather than do what’s best for all people.

before the lock: gun legislation was passed this morning (15 Republicans voted in favor to avoid a filibuster).

RBG disagreed with the basis upon which Roe was decided, using privacy and it was more focused on the rights of the doctor to perform abortions rather than the right of a woman to have one.

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948

It's up to either the states or Congress to act, what RBG always felt should have been done.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 24, 2022, 01:44:25 PM
To be fair, Congress today did pass watered-down gun-responsibility legislation. It doesn’t do enough to protect more of the lives that supposedly matter, but at least it’s a start.

But yes, the small-government, personal-rights, right-to-privacy people are now cheering government being granted free passage into pregnant women’s private parts.

The Handmaid‘s Tale, in real life.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 01:48:28 PM
49 years of 'settled law' up in smoke determined by an unelected body.

What this has shown us is that there is no such thing as stare decisis and any ruling can be overturned based on the make up of the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake, abortions will still happen and illegal ones will kill mothers and babies all across the country.

Fundamental Christian Extremists are taking this country back a hundred years.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Johnny B on June 24, 2022, 01:49:57 PM
doomsday
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 01:51:05 PM
We can’t come up with some common sense gun laws because “Second Amendment” and “protect the constitution.”

But then we’ll overturn Row v. Wade.

Lock this up if you want. Just so fed up with the lack of common sense and empathy in this country. It’s baffling how well twist ourselves into pretzels just to keep power where it has been forever, rather than do what’s best for all people.

What we need to do, if we can’t ban religion outright, is tax all churches and denominations.  Nothing kills and and divides quite like religion
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: buckchuckler on June 24, 2022, 01:58:56 PM
What we need to do, if we can’t ban religion outright, is tax all churches and denominations.  Nothing kills and and divides quite like religion

Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed. 

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: buckchuckler on June 24, 2022, 02:00:09 PM
49 years of 'settled law' up in smoke determined by an unelected body.

What this has shown us is that there is no such thing as stare decisis and any ruling can be overturned based on the make up of the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake, abortions will still happen and illegal ones will kill mothers and babies all across the country.

Fundamental Christian Extremists are taking this country back a hundred years.

If the law wasn't created by an unelected body, that read something that clearly isn't there, then maybe it wouldn't have been so susceptible to being overturned by that same body that created it.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 🏀 on June 24, 2022, 02:01:52 PM
Up next, gay rights. Some Americans are monsters.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:03:46 PM
If the law wasn't created by an unelected body, that read something that clearly isn't there, then maybe it wouldn't have been so susceptible to being overturned by that same body that created it.

"Tell me you don't understand jurisprudence without telling me you don't understand jurisprudence."

Take your religious values and practice them at home you ideological zealot.  Don't force them on everyone else.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 🏀 on June 24, 2022, 02:11:39 PM
"Tell me you don't understand jurisprudence without telling me you don't understand jurisprudence."

Take your religious values and practice them at home you ideological zealot.  Don't force them on everyone else.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: withoutbias on June 24, 2022, 02:11:47 PM
“Some people are not fit to have children/be parents.”

Also. “Overturn Roe v. Wade!”
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:12:30 PM
I'm bathing newborn babies in bathtubs of liberal tears today.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:14:37 PM
I'm bathing newborn babies in bathtubs of liberal tears today.

They're still going to die.  Just now the mothers as well.

Truly Pro-life delusion.  May your God have mercy on your soul.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 24, 2022, 02:16:33 PM
Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.
You don’t see tyranny in the government taking away a woman’s right to choose how she is going to live her life?

And what Hards said.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:17:29 PM
They're still going to die.  Just now the mothers as well.

Truly Pro-life delusion.  May your God have mercy on your soul.

Margaret Sanger is your God and abortion is a religion to the left.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:19:16 PM
Margaret Sanger is your God and abortion is a religion to the left.

I don't know who that is, nor do I care.

Abortion is not a religion, it is a medical procedure that is absolutely normal everywhere in the civilized world.

Why are you jerking off to the removal of rights?  I thought you were some sort of libertarian?  Guess not.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:22:33 PM
I don't know who that is, nor do I care.

Abortion is not a religion, it is a medical procedure that is absolutely normal everywhere in the civilized world.

Why are you jerking off to the removal of rights?  I thought you were some sort of libertarian?  Guess not.

And it will remain absolutely normal here. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:22:44 PM
I don't know who that is, nor do I care.

Abortion is not a religion, it is a medical procedure that is absolutely normal everywhere in the civilized world.

Why are you jerking off to the removal of rights?  I thought you were some sort of libertarian?  Guess not.

You know nothing about my views. 

Sanger was the racist eugenist that founded planned parenthood and wanted to eliminate black and other minority races.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:27:37 PM
You know nothing about my views. 

Sanger was the racist eugenist that founded planned parenthood and wanted to eliminate black and other minority races.

Then lay them bare and prove me wrong.

You said you were celebrating by 'bathing babies in liberal tears'.

If you think I'm going to defend someone like Sanger, you're wrong, but it was a fun red herring for you to bring up.  If you truly want my opinion, abortions should be legal and easily accessible at any clinic in the US.  If a medical professional doesn't want to perform them, they shouldn't be required to.  That decision shouldn't involve the US government any more than a removal of a tumor or the removal of tonsils.

Sorry, I'm just with the normal 2/3s of this country.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Goose on June 24, 2022, 02:28:26 PM
Zigs

You have them on google at the moment and will be anxious to hear the spin they come back with.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 02:31:22 PM
Before you post further, you may wish to do some research on who Margaret Sanger was and what she advocated. If you still don't care, well then........
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: withoutbias on June 24, 2022, 02:34:10 PM
Classic conservatives. Make any attempt to deflect attention. If you want Planned Parenthoods shut down everywhere fine. But abortion should not be illegal.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:34:28 PM
Then lay them bare and prove me wrong.

You said you were celebrating by 'bathing babies in liberal tears'.

If you think I'm going to defend someone like Sanger, you're wrong, but it was a fun red herring for you to bring up.  If you truly want my opinion, abortions should be legal and easily accessible at any clinic in the US.  If a medical professional doesn't want to perform them, they shouldn't be required to.  That decision shouldn't involve the US government any more than a removal of a tumor or the removal of tonsils.

Sorry, I'm just with the normal 2/3s of this country.

Then vote to have your local elected officials pass laws making it legal in your state like it was, is, and will be in the majority of states despite the SC ruling today.  If you live in a state that doesn’t now allow it then organize, vote, and demand change.

It’s not the SC job to make legislation.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: LAZER on June 24, 2022, 02:35:35 PM
I'm bathing newborn babies in bathtubs of liberal tears today.
This is what it's all about. Politics as sport without any type of regard for the people it affects and the shameful ways in which it was achieved. It's just another "win".
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: withoutbias on June 24, 2022, 02:36:55 PM
Then vote to have your local elected officials pass laws making it legal in your state like it was, is, and will be in the majority of states despite the SC ruling today.  If you live in a state that doesn’t now allow it then organize, vote, and demand change.

It’s not the SC job to make legislation.

This SC didn’t have to make legislation. They had to protect the Constitution. Like 4 of the justices that said they would do on this topic when they were sworn in.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:37:00 PM
Then vote to have your local elected officials pass laws making it legal in your state like it was, is, and will be in the majority of states despite the SC ruling today.  If you live in a state that doesn’t now allow it then organize, vote, and demand change.

It’s not the SC job to make legislation.

"Tell me you don't understand jurisprudence without telling me you don't understand jurisprudence."

Again, literally anything they rule on can be arbitrarily overturned at the drop of a hat by a simple majority of Supreme Court Justices.

I don't care about your or anyone's political leaning, but that very statement should scare the living crap out of everyone.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 02:38:03 PM
This is what it's all about. Politics as sport without any type of regard for the people it affects and the shameful ways in which it was achieved. It's just another "win".

This is exactly it. Very sad.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:38:07 PM
This SC didn’t have to make legislation. They had to protect the Constitution. Like 4 of the justices that said they would do on this topic when they were sworn in.

That’s not true.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:39:32 PM
"Tell me you don't understand jurisprudence without telling me you don't understand jurisprudence."

Again, literally anything they rule on can be arbitrarily overturned at the drop of a hat by a simple majority of Supreme Court Justices.

I don't care about your or anyone's political leaning, but that very statement should scare the living crap out of everyone.

If it’s unconstitutional yes they can overturn it, that’s not scary….it’s their job.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:40:14 PM
If it’s unconstitutional yes they can overturn it, that’s not scary….it’s their job.

You're in way over your head here kiddo, sit this one out.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:41:37 PM
You're in way over your head here kiddo, sit this one out.

You’re emotional right now.  Take a breath, bucko .
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:43:09 PM
You're in way over your head here kiddo, sit this one out.

Internet tough guy.

Put some sunscreen on and get to the capital square.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:44:05 PM
You’re emotional right now.  Take a breath, bucko .

I'm not emotional, you're frustrating to talk to because your comprehension level is that of a kid half your age.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:44:48 PM
Internet tough guy.

Put some sunscreen on and get to the capital square.

As opposed to you, that's awfully rich.

Shouldn't you be there celebrating more death?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:46:46 PM
As opposed to you, that's awfully rich.

Shouldn't you be there celebrating more death?

I don't celebrate death, fool.  You do.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 02:47:39 PM
Just as scary, the same justices issued a ruling this week that clears the way for cops to ignore Miranda without recourse.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:48:40 PM
I don't celebrate death, fool.  You do.

Things which are not viable on their own are not alive and therefore cannot die.  You're here celebrating back alley abortions that will kill more desperate women.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:49:24 PM
Just as scary, the same justices issued a ruling this week that clears the way for cops to ignore Miranda without recourse.

I agree with this.  Not a good decision.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:51:15 PM
Things which are not viable on their own are not alive and therefore cannot die.  You're here celebrating back alley abortions that will kill more desperate women.

Abortion is still legal in many states.  It's now a state decision.  Just like RBG wanted it to be.  And bless her heart for not retiring during the Obama + dem senate years.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:52:12 PM
Just as scary, the same justices issued a ruling this week that clears the way for cops to ignore Miranda without recourse.

Not exactly.  Just can’t sue the cop personally.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 24, 2022, 02:53:50 PM
Things which are not viable on their own are not alive and therefore cannot die.  You're here celebrating back alley abortions that will kill more desperate women.

So you get in a car accident and need to be kept on life support.  Your body can no longer survive without the assistance of machines and others.  Let them die?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 02:54:50 PM
Not exactly.  Just can’t sue the cop personally.

Regardless, miranda rights are so standard now, it should be considered just as much of the arrest process as handcuffs and fingerprints.  No cop should be arresting someone without miranda.

(Miranda was the name of the stripper dressed like a cop at wades' going away party, btw.)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:56:01 PM
Abortion is still legal in many states.  It's now a state decision.  Just like RBG wanted it to be.  And bless her heart for not retiring during the Obama + dem senate years.

Why should I care what RBG thinks?  She was appointed to SCOTUS 21 years after Roe was decided.  She's just a person

I don't know why you are attempting to mythologize certain people on my behalf.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Ah, yes.  Margaret Sanger.  The classic whataboutism.  I suspect her views about race being shared by say, Tucker Carlson, don’t matter then
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 02:57:05 PM
So you get in a car accident and need to be kept on life support.  Your body can no longer survive without the assistance of machines and others.  Let them die?

I'm not emotional, you're frustrating to talk to because your comprehension level is that of a kid half your age.

You're in way over your head here kiddo, sit this one out.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 02:57:08 PM
Internet tough guy.

Put some sunscreen on and get to the capital square.

Sheesh talk about a lack of self awareness.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 24, 2022, 03:01:57 PM
Up next, gay rights. Some Americans are monsters.

you're really buying into that fearmongering? Did you already get the "donate now to save gay rights" emails as I did?

And you do know your hero Markus was the face of an anti-gay rights organization, FCA, right?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:03:37 PM
you're really buying into that fearmongering? Did you already get the "donate now to save gay rights" emails as I did?

I mean, Thomas made it clear that’s next
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 03:04:17 PM
you're really buying into that fearmongering? Did you already get the "donate now to save gay rights" emails as I did?

If you read the ruling, and Thomas' concurrence in particular - he literally calls for reconsideration of Obergfell, Griswold and Lawrence - you wouldn't be foolish enough to call it fearmongering.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 24, 2022, 03:04:27 PM
They're still going to die.  Just now the mothers as well.

Truly Pro-life delusion.  May your God have mercy on your soul.

It's forced birth, not pro-life.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 24, 2022, 03:05:36 PM
If you read the ruling, and Thomas' concurrence in particular - he literally calls for reconsideration of Obergfell, Griswold and Lawrence - you wouldn't be foolish enough to call it fearmongering.

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 24, 2022, 03:05:44 PM
I don't celebrate death, fool.  You do.

Then what about women who need abortions because of ectopic pregnancies?

With certain states proposed restrictions they are literally sentencing those women to death.

Rape, incest, miscarriages, other dangerous pregnancies. This isn’t pro life, this is pro forced birth.

Sickeninng
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:06:14 PM
Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.

Religion is the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 03:06:36 PM
and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

Ah, so you're saying he is unfit for office and should resign?

Odd that we agree on this.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 03:07:05 PM
I mean, Thomas made it clear that’s next

Right?

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

What’d the justices say about Roe v. Wade when they were sworn in?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 24, 2022, 03:09:45 PM
Religion is the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind

Indeed
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 03:10:56 PM
Not exactly.  Just can’t sue the cop personally.

Do you know what the phrase "without recourse" means?
Did you read Alito's ruling?
The court explicitly ruled that being Mirandized is no longer a Constitutional right, but rather a " prophylactic rule" that should be decided on a case-by-case basis using a "cost-benefit" analysis.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 03:15:04 PM
and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

Well, who would ever question the veracity of Justice Kavanaugh?

“This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," Collins said in a statement.

"I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," he said.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 24, 2022, 03:15:09 PM
before the lock: gun legislation was passed this morning (15 Republicans voted in favor to avoid a filibuster).

RBG disagreed with the basis upon which Roe was decided, using privacy and it was more focused on the rights of the doctor to perform abortions rather than the right of a woman to have one.

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948

It's up to either the states or Congress to act, what RBG always felt should have been done.


To me it's always been straight forward.  On the 1st Amendment - Don't force your religious beliefs which include forced birth (anti-abortion) on anyone.
It should also be legal based on the 9th Amendment.  Citizens have rights not listed in the first 8 including this 
And it's the living breathing walking citizens that have rights.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 24, 2022, 03:15:37 PM
Ah, so you're saying he is unfit for office and should resign?

Odd that we agree on this.

Yes, he is.

Right?

What’d the justices say about abortion when they were sworn in?

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law too. But, as RBG said, Roe was decided on a flimsy foundation that left it open to being overturned if the right case came along. The others were not; they were decided on solid, legal grounds. Even Alito said this in the opinion:

"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," the document states. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Thomas is going off on his own and his opinion quoted himself for precedent. It's red meat for the media while they ignore the comments of the other justices, and interest groups who will fundraise a ton off this.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 03:16:45 PM
Ah, yes.  Margaret Sanger.  The classic whataboutism.  I suspect her views about race being shared by say, Tucker Carlson, don’t matter then

Sentence 1:  accuse someone of whayaboutism.
Sentence 2:  use whataboutism.

0/10.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 03:18:56 PM
49 years of 'settled law' up in smoke determined by an unelected body.

What this has shown us is that there is no such thing as stare decisis and any ruling can be overturned based on the make up of the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake, abortions will still happen and illegal ones will kill mothers and babies all across the country.

Fundamental Christian Extremists are taking this country back a hundred years.

Your love affair with the "Stare Decisis" is misplaced. SD is not law and it is not codified anywhere. It is a doctrine or guide that has evolved over centuries to provide clarity and consistency to prior rulings on the same issue. While SD has a virtual binding effect on lower courts and on intermediate appellate courts, it is not absolute when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The US SC can re-visit its own prior decisions anytime it has the proper case before it.

In 1896 the US SC in Plessy v. Ferguson held that " separate but equal" was permitted and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution ( public accomodations----separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites). The adherence to "Stare Decisis" caused that to be the law for 58 years and resulted in mandated separate schools; separate restrooms; separate hotels; etc. For segregationists and other Democrats, Plessy was the gift that kept on giving.

Until 1954 when the US SC realized the grave error they had made, and in Brown v Board of Education, held that separate schools were inherently UNEQUAL, thereby implicitly overrulind Plessy. This opened the door for school and other integration. Stare Decisis be damned.

So under your position, SD should prevent today's court from overruling Roe, and the 1954 Court should have been prevented from overruling Plessy because of SD. Or in other words, keep aborting and keep Blacks in separate train cars. Unless you're a rank hypocrite, today's SC decision overturning Roe is completely reconcilable with Brown.

And Stare Decisis has little, if nothing, to do with it.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MuggsyB on June 24, 2022, 03:19:22 PM
Thomas made an idiotic comment.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:22:44 PM
Sentence 1:  accuse someone of whayaboutism.
Sentence 2:  use whataboutism.

0/10.

Margaret Sanger has as much to do with this decisions as Tucker Carlson.  Get it?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 24, 2022, 03:23:43 PM
I mean, Thomas made it clear that’s next

He's plotting the next J6 with Ginny
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:25:07 PM
He's plotting the next J6 with Ginny

He’s unfit to be on the court and his wife is a traitor.  She’ll be great for fundraising efforts, however
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 24, 2022, 03:26:25 PM
He’s unfit to be on the court and his wife is a traitor.  She’ll be great for fundraising efforts, however

One among several unfit.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:29:08 PM
One among several unfit.

Lying under oath should be a disqualifier.  Alas, we’ve long proven on both sides that doesn’t really matter
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MuggsyB on June 24, 2022, 03:30:16 PM
It seems to me that the majority of people believe after 15 weeks abortion should be illegal while the overall  majority is also pro-choice.  What I don't understand is why there cannot be some legislation, or movement on both sides, regardless if this is now going to be a State issue, which would lead to laws siding with the majority opinion?  Because as far as I understand the left's idea of codifying Roe wouldn't actually be accurate.  It goes much further than that and includes late term abortions.  Personally, I think this is a poor decision and partly because people will still get black market abortions which is a disaster. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:38:20 PM
Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
Yes, he is.

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law too. But, as RBG said, Roe was decided on a flimsy foundation that left it open to being overturned if the right case came along. The others were not; they were decided on solid, legal grounds. Even Alito said this in the opinion:

"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," the document states. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Thomas is going off on his own and his opinion quoted himself for precedent. It's red meat for the media while they ignore the comments of the other justices, and interest groups who will fundraise a ton off this.

Solid dodge.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 03:42:26 PM
It seems to me that the majority of people believe after 15 weeks abortion should be illegal while the overall  majority is also pro-choice.  What I don't understand is why there cannot be some legislation, or movement on both sides, regardless if this is now going to be a State issue, which would lead to laws siding with the majority opinion?  Because as far as I understand the left's idea of codifying Roe wouldn't actually be accurate.  It goes much further than that and includes late term abortions.  Personally, I think this is a poor decision and partly because people will still get black market abortions which is a disaster.

I'm the left and I don't think that abortions should be any of the government's business.  Ziggy's access to genital wart medication isn't questioned, so why should a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy be?  They're medical procedures and they're performed routinely all over the global north. 

If you want to draw the line 15 weeks that's fine, I guess, since there has to be a compromise.  I can be baby stepped to go to 15 weeks since that is a reasonable enough amount of time to know of the pregnancy and discuss all options.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:43:16 PM
Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.
Bingo
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 03:43:36 PM
Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.

How perfectly cruel of you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 24, 2022, 03:43:50 PM
Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.

*Fetus

What about women who were raped? Should they have to carry that out to full term. Technically that’s a viable pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancy? Technically speaking it’s viable, the fetus can still grow. Who cares about the woman that will die carrying it to full term though, right?

And before you say, “oh that’ll never happen” bullcrap. Some states will absolutely use those technicalities and say those count as viable pregnancies.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:46:53 PM
How perfectly cruel of you.
I’ve never killed a baby so I’ll take that side every time. What I am concerned about is abortions that may have to take place as a result of health of the mother, rape or incest. Outside of that, you make a sexual decision, you live with it. Period. Or, move. My body my choice except for vaccines. All lives matter except for unborn ones. Etc., etc.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:49:01 PM
*Fetus

What about women who were raped? Should they have to carry that out to full term. Technically that’s a viable pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancy? Technically speaking it’s viable, the fetus can still grow. Who cares about the woman that will die carrying it to full term though, right?

And before you say, “oh that’ll never happen” bullcrap. Some states will absolutely use those technicalities and say those count as viable pregnancies.

Don’t argue with racist dirtbags
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:50:58 PM
Don’t argue with racist dirtbags
When you have nothing to say, scream racism. Works every time. The ultimate Trump card and sign of a fundamentally flawed argument.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 03:51:46 PM
I’ve never killed a baby so I’ll take that side every time. What I am concerned about is abortions that may have to take place as a result of health of the mother, rape or incest. Outside of that, you make a sexual decision, you live with it. Period. Or, move. My body my choice except for vaccines. All lives matter except for unborn ones. Etc., etc.

They're not babies you doofus.  No one is killing babies, and if they are, it's murder.  A clump of cells that can't live on it's own isn't a baby.

Again, take your puritanical Fundemental Christian Extremism and move to a country that was founded upon it.  This one certainly wasn't.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 03:53:21 PM
When you have nothing to say, scream racism. Works every time. The ultimate Trump card and sign of a fundamentally flawed argument.

Your posting history is a clear indication of your racism. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:53:54 PM
They're not babies you doofus.  No one is killing babies, and if they are, it's murder.  A clump of cells that can't live on it's own isn't a baby.

Again, take your puritanical Fundemental Christian Extremism and move to a country that was founded upon it.  This one certainly wasn't.
I respect your opinion. I’ll stay in this country because I love the red white and blue.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 03:54:17 PM
Your posting history is a clear indication of your racism.
I respect your opinion.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 24, 2022, 04:01:43 PM
They're not babies you doofus.  No one is killing babies, and if they are, it's murder.  A clump of cells that can't live on it's own isn't a baby.

Again, take your puritanical Fundemental Christian Extremism and move to a country that was founded upon it.  This one certainly wasn't.
A born baby can't live on its own also.  It also needs its mother or others for its existence.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 04:04:59 PM
A born baby can't live on its own also.  It also needs its mother or others for its existence.

Just needs anyone to take care of it.   ;)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 04:09:21 PM
I’ve never killed a baby so I’ll take that side every time. What I am concerned about is abortions that may have to take place as a result of health of the mother, rape or incest. Outside of that, you make a sexual decision, you live with it. Period. Or, move. My body my choice except for vaccines. All lives matter except for unborn ones. Etc., etc.

You’ve never killed an intruder yet you love to tell everyone how manly you are and how you’d blow a person’s head off to protect your family all the time.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 04:12:11 PM
You’ve never killed an intruder yet you love to tell everyone how manly you are and how you’d blow a person’s head off to protect your family all the time.
I stand by that. My family is happy and protected to the best of my ability. That is my duty as a man, a husband and a father.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 04:15:28 PM
When you have nothing to say, scream racism. Works every time. The ultimate Trump card and sign of a fundamentally flawed argument.

+100
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 24, 2022, 04:15:38 PM
How about we compromise. If you get an abortion (except for the cases of incest, rape, danger to mother), you get sterilized as well
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 24, 2022, 04:17:52 PM
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 24, 2022, 04:19:20 PM
That is a nice little quote we have seen before.  Again, who says people aren't also being concerned and helping those other groups.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 24, 2022, 04:20:45 PM
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
1. It doesn't have to be either/or
2. Pastor Barnhart is a man of religion, so his opinions are automatically thrown out by many here
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 04:22:39 PM
1. It doesn't have to be either/or
2. Pastor Barnhart is a man of religion, so his opinions are automatically thrown out by many here

??????????????
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 04:22:50 PM
+100

When a guy posts racist drivel, that makes him a racist
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 24, 2022, 04:26:03 PM
That is a nice little quote we have seen before.  Again, who says people aren't also being concerned and helping those other groups.

Who says? Well most pro-abortion politicians for one.

1. It doesn't have to be either/or
2. Pastor Barnhart is a man of religion, so his opinions are automatically thrown out by many here

It doesn't have to be. Yet so many who who fight for the unborn seem very happy to fight against certain populations of born people despite claiming to be Christian.

As a disclaimer I am both Christian and believe life starts at conception. I just recognize that my belief shouldn't be forced onto others.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 04:28:18 PM
When a guy posts racist drivel, that makes him a racist

I have seen neither racism nor drivel from Mr. Merit on this site
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Goose on June 24, 2022, 04:29:34 PM
All I know is that from the day I heard my wife and I were expecting a child I had unconditional love for that child. Imo, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing a Mom see her new child the first time. It brings tears to my eyes every time I see a picture of Mom and their child. That 100% sums up my feeling on the topic.
 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 04:32:16 PM
Your love affair with the "Stare Decisis" is misplaced. SD is not law and it is not codified anywhere. It is a doctrine or guide that has evolved over centuries to provide clarity and consistency to prior rulings on the same issue. While SD has a virtual binding effect on lower courts and on intermediate appellate courts, it is not absolute when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The US SC can re-visit its own prior decisions anytime it has the proper case before it.

In 1896 the US SC in Plessy v. Ferguson held that " separate but equal" was permitted and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution ( public accomodations----separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites). The adherence to "Stare Decisis" caused that to be the law for 58 years and resulted in mandated separate schools; separate restrooms; separate hotels; etc. For segregationists and other Democrats, Plessy was the gift that kept on giving.

Until 1954 when the US SC realized the grave error they had made, and in Brown v Board of Education, held that separate schools were inherently UNEQUAL, thereby implicitly overrulind Plessy. This opened the door for school and other integration. Stare Decisis be damned.

So under your position, SD should prevent today's court from overruling Roe, and the 1954 Court should have been prevented from overruling Plessy because of SD. Or in other words, keep aborting and keep Blacks in separate train cars. Unless you're a rank hypocrite, today's SC decision overturning Roe is completely reconcilable with Brown.

And Stare Decisis has little, if nothing, to do with it.

Ah, the false equivalency to Plessy again raises its ugly head.
A few problems with this argument.

The first a is that Plessy - unlike Roe - was never explicitly overturned by the court. We didn't have one group of justices arrive on the scene decades later and say "You know, I don't like that ruling. Let's flip it." Now, Brown did have the effect of weakening it in schools specifically, but unlike Dobbs, Brown wasn't written solely to reverse a prior court's decision.

Second, unlike Brown and most other instances in with a latter court decision had the effect of weakening or changing a prior court ruling, Dobbs wasn't written to protect or extend a Constitutional right. It was written to eliminate one. I may be wrong here, but I'm not aware of any other instances in which a court threw out a prior court's decision with the express purpose of taking away a right.

And third, while Brown reflected the vast change in American law, culture and society when it came to race since Plessy and was reflective of popular sentiment, Dobbs is the opposite. The American public overwhelmingly supports abortion rights, and certainly moreso than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain. 

So, sorry, but your attempt to equate the two is a failure.


Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 04:33:23 PM
All I know is that from the day I heard my wife and I were expecting a child I had unconditional love for that child. Imo, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing a Mom see her new child the first time. It brings tears to my eyes every time I see a picture of Mom and their child. That 100% sums up my feeling on the topic.
Thanks for sharing, Brother Goose.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 24, 2022, 04:33:30 PM
Up next, gay rights. Some Americans are monsters.

Or as Texas put in their platform, Abnormal.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 04:33:46 PM
I have seen neither racism nor drivel from Mr. Merit on this site

(https://engineering.giphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 24, 2022, 04:33:59 PM


It doesn't have to be. Yet so many who who fight for the unborn seem very happy to fight against certain populations of born people despite claiming to be Christian.

As a disclaimer I am both Christian and believe life starts at conception. I just recognize that my belief shouldn't be forced onto others.
That's where I am at as well.

 I do think there should be a waiting period, should be the same amount of time as getting a gun.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 24, 2022, 04:35:56 PM
Who says? Well most pro-abortion politicians for one.

It doesn't have to be. Yet so many who who fight for the unborn seem very happy to fight against certain populations of born people despite claiming to be Christian.

As a disclaimer I am both Christian and believe life starts at conception. I just recognize that my belief shouldn't be forced onto others.

Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 04:36:29 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

You got it, ma'am.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 04:36:47 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

Who has ever done that, Mrs. Warrior?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 04:37:03 PM
I have seen neither racism nor drivel from Mr. Merit on this site

Sorry you feel that way
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 24, 2022, 04:37:49 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.
Agreed. And don’t force medical treatments on people like vaccines. As a libertarian and Catholic, just let people be!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 04:38:50 PM
Agreed. And don’t force medical treatments on people like vaccines. As a libertarian and Catholic, just let people be!

Who forced you to take a vaccine?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: LAZER on June 24, 2022, 04:39:04 PM
All I know is that from the day I heard my wife and I were expecting a child I had unconditional love for that child. Imo, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing a Mom see her new child the first time. It brings tears to my eyes every time I see a picture of Mom and their child. That 100% sums up my feeling on the topic.
This isn’t really the topic though
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 24, 2022, 04:42:18 PM
All I know is that from the day I heard my wife and I were expecting a child I had unconditional love for that child. Imo, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing a Mom see her new child the first time. It brings tears to my eyes every time I see a picture of Mom and their child. That 100% sums up my feeling on the topic.

But that’s not everybody’s experience. Whose paying for the child care if the mother walks out?

You can’t push your experience onto everybody. Especially when people also don’t believe in supporting those below the poverty line.

All you’re going to do is tell someone “pull yourselves up by your boot straps, this is ‘Murica.” to a person/child that didn’t ask to be put in that situation. And then not support them when they’re on the streets.

It’s so unnatural carnal knowledgeed
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 04:45:49 PM
I do think there should be a waiting period, should be the same amount of time as getting a gun.

I mean, OK, but it's not like a woman can walk into their local Walmart to get an abortion. It's something that requires an appointment which, I would imagine, isn't a "see you in an hour" kind of thing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 24, 2022, 04:46:09 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

Who is forcing you? You can call people whatever pronoun you want. Just like I can call you whatever name I want if you refuse to call someone by their preferred pronoun.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 24, 2022, 04:49:02 PM
They're not babies you doofus.  No one is killing babies, and if they are, it's murder.  A clump of cells that can't live on it's own isn't a baby.

Again, take your puritanical Fundemental Christian Extremism and move to a country that was founded upon it.  This one certainly wasn't.

Which is my point, this decision violates 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion rights.  The every fetus is a baby is a religious belief and being forced on others this violating rights
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Goose on June 24, 2022, 04:49:49 PM
Lazer

My take, I am fine if it is legal and it should only be done in extreme circumstances. That said, that is my opinion and understand my opinion does not match up with everyone.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 24, 2022, 04:55:01 PM
Doesn’t matter if the fetus is badly injured in the womb and will go on to have only 3 very painful weeks once out of the womb before dying.

The mother MUST carry that inside her for months and months, must give birth, must helplessly watch the child suffer, must helplessly watch the child die a horrible death, and then must endure a lifetime of emotional suffering herself.

Because the big government of her state said she must, and because she couldn’t afford to travel to a place where there isn’t a cruel, heartless, invasive ruling government entity.

Just like Jesus would have wanted.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 24, 2022, 04:55:34 PM
I mean, OK, but it's not like a woman can walk into their local Walmart to get an abortion. It's something that requires an appointment which, I would imagine, isn't a "see you in an hour" kind of thing.
Here's the waiting period list:
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion) I think it should be at least 7 days, along with required counseling. Guns should be at least that long, with required training.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 05:21:25 PM
Here's the waiting period list:
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion) I think it should be at least 7 days, along with required counseling. Guns should be at least that long, with required training.

Counseling by who? For what purpose?
I suspect the counseling one receives at Planned Parenthood might be a little different than at Catholic Charities.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 24, 2022, 05:44:03 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.
Agreed. And don’t force medical treatments on people like vaccines. As a libertarian and Catholic, just let people be!

One trend that once you start to notice, you see everywhere, is that the average person on the right [edit: who is motivated by social issues] does not understand the difference between governmental action and the consequences of their actions from private actors.  This isn't meant to be meanspirited, they truly do not know the difference.  The result is people who allegedly believe in small government trying to use that government as a cudgel against private individuals as a way of getting back at them for how mad they are at the direction society is developing. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 24, 2022, 06:05:46 PM
When you have nothing to say, scream racism. Works every time. The ultimate Trump card and sign of a fundamentally flawed argument.
Except, of course, that you scream your racism every chance you get, including your signature. Along with your soulmate, roqqet. It would be rude of us not to note the racism you are so proud to display.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 24, 2022, 06:18:49 PM
Had RBG resigned, as she should have, during BO's presidency, today's event would not have taken place. So ultimately, the selfish, terminally ill justice, who was the guiding light for women's rights...fooked over women, aina?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 24, 2022, 06:20:07 PM
Had RBG resigned, as she should have, during BO's presidency, today's event would not have taken place. So ultimately, the selfish, terminally ill justice, who was the guiding light for women's rights...fooked over women, aina?

Not really. Current Supreme Court justices who lied under oath during their swearing in fooked over all Americans today. Their job is to uphold the law, not play politics.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 24, 2022, 06:41:25 PM
I'm the left and I don't think that abortions should be any of the government's business.  Ziggy's access to genital wart medication isn't questioned, so why should a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy be?  They're medical procedures and they're performed routinely all over the global north. 

If you want to draw the line 15 weeks that's fine, I guess, since there has to be a compromise.  I can be baby stepped to go to 15 weeks since that is a reasonable enough amount of time to know of the pregnancy and discuss all options.

I’ve always thought 15 was a good mark.  12 is the mark for a number of countries in Europe, but 15 is good enough.  I do struggle with the argument that it’s just a clump of cells at that point. I remember our ultrasound appt well before 15, and there were heartbeats, and dimension measurements.  We knew the gender well before that mark.  You can already test for abnormalities.

Sure it’s a fetus, not a baby, but it’s not some nebulous cell arrangement.  So I’ve always hated that argument past 8-10 weeks.

Dicks, Alaska Airlines, and even Chase have already said they’d cover employee travel if their state bans abortions, which is pretty incredible
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MuggsyB on June 24, 2022, 07:10:14 PM
I’ve always thought 15 was a good mark.  12 is the mark for a number of countries in Europe, but 15 is good enough.  I do struggle with the argument that it’s just a clump of cells at that point. I remember our ultrasound appt well before 15, and there were heartbeats, and dimension measurements.  We knew the gender well before that mark.  You can already test for abnormalities.

Sure it’s a fetus, not a baby, but it’s not some nebulous cell arrangement.  So I’ve always hated that argument past 8-10 weeks.

Dicks, Alaska Airlines, and even Chase have already said they’d cover employee travel if their state bans abortions, which is pretty incredible

A significant majority agree with 15 weeks. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 24, 2022, 07:17:13 PM
"In his opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the high court should revisit all cases built on similar legal footing—including cases that guarantee the right to contraception, same-sex consensual sexual relations, and same-sex marriage.

All three cases—and numerous other landmark decisions—are built upon the right to substantive due process found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, which prohibit the government from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;topic=63457.100;last_msg=1457054

Conveniently for Mr. Pubic Hair guy, the Loving decision has a different legal rationale.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 07:18:07 PM
"In his opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the high court should revisit all cases built on similar legal footing—including cases that guarantee the right to contraception, same-sex consensual sexual relations, and same-sex marriage.

All three cases—and numerous other landmark decisions—are built upon the right to substantive due process found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, which prohibit the government from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=post;topic=63457.100;last_msg=1457054

Conveniently for Mr. Pubic Hair guy, the Loving decision has a different legal rationale.

Quite convenient
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Mutaman on June 24, 2022, 07:24:26 PM
49 years of 'settled law' up in smoke determined by an unelected body.

What this has shown us is that there is no such thing as stare decisis and any ruling can be overturned based on the make up of the Supreme Court.



Bingo. Aside from the miserable effect this ruling is going to have on American women, the total disregard for concepts of jurisprudence is pretty unsettling. Thomas and his crowd are really a disgrace to the legal profession. Ignoring stare decisis is what lazy judges and political hacks do.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 07:45:31 PM
Who says? Well most pro-abortion politicians for one.

It doesn't have to be. Yet so many who who fight for the unborn seem very happy to fight against certain populations of born people despite claiming to be Christian.



As a disclaimer I am both Christian and believe life starts at conception. I just recognize that my belief shouldn't be forced onto others.

Christians for Abortion????

I don't believe I've ever heard of that group. Do you guys have a website so I can check you out. And where do you meet, a phone booth???
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 24, 2022, 07:54:54 PM
Christians for Abortion????

I don't believe I've ever heard of that group. Do you guys have a website so I can check you out. And where do you meet, a phone booth???

They meet in the cafeteria.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 24, 2022, 07:57:20 PM
The Onion has it correct again.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/1d/5AOPbmYk_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/5AOPbmYk)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 07:58:14 PM
Christians for Abortion????

I don't believe I've ever heard of that group. Do you guys have a website so I can check you out. And where do you meet, a phone booth???

You do realize that you Christian Fundies are to the right of Islamic Fundies on this subject... don't you?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 08:02:20 PM
Ah, the false equivalency to Plessy again raises its ugly head.
A few problems with this argument.

The first a is that Plessy - unlike Roe - was never explicitly overturned by the court. We didn't have one group of justices arrive on the scene decades later and say "You know, I don't like that ruling. Let's flip it." Now, Brown did have the effect of weakening it in schools specifically, but unlike Dobbs, Brown wasn't written solely to reverse a prior court's decision.

Second, unlike Brown and most other instances in with a latter court decision had the effect of weakening or changing a prior court ruling, Dobbs wasn't written to protect or extend a Constitutional right. It was written to eliminate one. I may be wrong here, but I'm not aware of any other instances in which a court threw out a prior court's decision with the express purpose of taking away a right.

And third, while Brown reflected the vast change in American law, culture and society when it came to race since Plessy and was reflective of popular sentiment, Dobbs is the opposite. The American public overwhelmingly supports abortion rights, and certainly moreso than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain. 

So, sorry, but your attempt to equate the two is a failure.

No "false eqivelency whatsoever.

The Plessy court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. a Constitutionally protected right to discriminate against Blacks.

The Roe court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. the right to an abortion.

It took 58 years for the court to decide they had made a mistake thus the Brown decision IMPLICITLY overulling Plessy. And it took the court 49 years to realize and correct their.

If you're going to venture into areas you obviously know little about, you should do your homework first.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 08:04:44 PM
No "false eqivelency whatsoever.

The Plessy court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. a Constitutionally protected right to discriminate against Blacks.

The Roe court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. the right to an abortion.

It took 58 years for the court to decide they had made a mistake thus the Brown decision IMPLICITLY overulling Plessy. And it took the court 49 years to realize and correct their.

If you're going to venture into areas you obviously know little about, you should do your homework first.

Just wait
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 08:06:25 PM
No "false eqivelency .

Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 08:09:10 PM
Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong.

Source?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 24, 2022, 08:12:53 PM
You do realize that you Christian Fundies are to the right of Islamic Fundies on this subject... don't you?

Thanks for the insight, Hard. That oughta move a lot of hearts and minds.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 24, 2022, 08:18:09 PM
The lesson to be learned is, religion is a crutch for the feeble-minded.  The world is full of thousands of religions, none of which withstand any rational scrutiny. 

They are built to control and rule by fear, the same things they tell you the government do.  They don’t understand their hypocrisy because they don’t understand humanity.

Religion has destroyed this planet tenfold.  It is relentless in its quest to control.  Free yourselves before you’re worm food.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 24, 2022, 08:20:15 PM
Thanks for the insight, Hard. That oughta move a lot of hearts and minds.

Don't worry, you're not worth saving.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Mutaman on June 24, 2022, 08:22:28 PM
No "false eqivelency whatsoever.

The Plessy court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. a Constitutionally protected right to discriminate against Blacks.

The Roe court read into the Constitution something that never existed i.e. the right to an abortion.

It took 58 years for the court to decide they had made a mistake thus the Brown decision IMPLICITLY overulling Plessy. And it took the court 49 years to realize and correct their.

If you're going to venture into areas you obviously know little about, you should do your homework first.

A very foolish analogy. And throw a little ad hominem in there for good measure.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 24, 2022, 08:34:29 PM
Source?

Read Plessy.
Read Brown

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 24, 2022, 08:54:55 PM
Christians for Abortion????

I don't believe I've ever heard of that group. Do you guys have a website so I can check you out. And where do you meet, a phone booth???

You realize that most Christian denominations, including Catholics, have more members who are pro choice than pro life, right?

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/.

It is possible to believe one thing but also believe that your belief shouldn't be mandated on others by the government.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 24, 2022, 09:03:10 PM
Outside of that, you make a sexual decision, you live with it. Period.

I see this sentiment a lot,  but you realize this means that you are telling people that they should be 100% abstinent unless they are prepared to have a baby. Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy.  Condoms break,  birth control fails,  and without natural family planning I wouldn't be here today.

If you're going to advocate to abolish abortion,  the least you can do is advocate for comprehensive sex Ed and increased access to birth control to try to mitigate some of the negative impacts.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 24, 2022, 09:08:13 PM
Ah, the false equivalency to Plessy again raises its ugly head.
A few problems with this argument.

The first a is that Plessy - unlike Roe - was never explicitly overturned by the court. We didn't have one group of justices arrive on the scene decades later and say "You know, I don't like that ruling. Let's flip it." Now, Brown did have the effect of weakening it in schools specifically, but unlike Dobbs, Brown wasn't written solely to reverse a prior court's decision.

Second, unlike Brown and most other instances in with a latter court decision had the effect of weakening or changing a prior court ruling, Dobbs wasn't written to protect or extend a Constitutional right. It was written to eliminate one. I may be wrong here, but I'm not aware of any other instances in which a court threw out a prior court's decision with the express purpose of taking away a right.

And third, while Brown reflected the vast change in American law, culture and society when it came to race since Plessy and was reflective of popular sentiment, Dobbs is the opposite. The American public overwhelmingly supports abortion rights, and certainly moreso than 50 years ago. Unlike Brown, this court is cutting against the grain. 

So, sorry, but your attempt to equate the two is a failure.

...but SCOTUS' opinion matters more than yours so your point is moot. Now that Roe is reversed it IS the settled law of the land.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 24, 2022, 09:28:54 PM
...but SCOTUS' opinion matters more than yours so your point is moot. Now that Roe is reversed it IS the settled law of the land.

What makes this court’s decision more right than the one 50 years ago?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 24, 2022, 09:30:02 PM
"In his opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the high court should revisit all cases built on similar legal footing—including cases that guarantee the right to contraception, same-sex consensual sexual relations, and same-sex marriage.

For folks that lean right, the evolution of the Clarence Thomas-Ginny Thomas plot has to make you feel kinda gross, right?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 24, 2022, 09:31:18 PM
The lesson to be learned is, religion is a crutch for the feeble-minded.  The world is full of thousands of religions, none of which withstand any rational scrutiny. 

Hold on, you're saying Xenu didn't fly people to Earth in a DC-8, drop them near volcanoes, and blow them up with hydrogen bombs?

Or that a Jewish zombie had to fix people's souls because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magic apple?

Huh. This changes things.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pbiflyer on June 24, 2022, 09:38:27 PM
So, the pro birth crowd now has a chance to prove the rest of us wrong, that they are truly pro life, by advocating for free pre natal care, enhanced post birth family leave time, enhanced food programs for these new kids that go hungry, etc.
I’m not holding my breath. A leopard doesn’t change its spots.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 24, 2022, 10:14:47 PM
Hold on, you're saying Xenu didn't fly people to Earth in a DC-8, drop them near volcanoes, and blow them up with hydrogen bombs?

Or that a Jewish zombie had to fix people's souls because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magic apple?

Huh. This changes things.

was this supposed to be funny?  i can't believe some of you even attended marquette...or if ya did...why?  trying to feel sorry for some of you too and how lonely you have got to be without some kind of spiritual foundation to appreciate the sanctity of life rather than a "clump of cells"  the "clump of cells" analogy is intellectually lazy, overly simplistic and honestly quite sad.  but carry on, sleep well, but some of this was really hard to read
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: GB Warrior on June 24, 2022, 10:18:40 PM
For folks that lean right, the evolution of the Clarence Thomas-Ginny Thomas plot has to make you feel kinda gross, right?

No, why would it. The right gets to see more babies born so the right can subsequently murder them in schools
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 24, 2022, 11:51:37 PM
Then don't force me to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

Whiny mediocre white person claims victimhood.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 24, 2022, 11:58:40 PM
For folks that lean right, the evolution of the Clarence Thomas-Ginny Thomas plot has to make you feel kinda gross, right?

Clarence Thomas has said he supports everything his wife does.

She worked hard for the overthrow of our gov't. Was intimately involved in pushing Trump to that end. Curiously, Thomas was then the ONLY justice of nine that voted that Trump did not have to turn over documents.

What a coincidence!!!

And now he wants go ban contraception. Let him be the 1st man in line to get his d*** cut off.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on June 25, 2022, 12:18:37 AM
was this supposed to be funny?  i can't believe some of you even attended marquette...or if ya did...why?  trying to feel sorry for some of you too and how lonely you have got to be without some kind of spiritual foundation to appreciate the sanctity of life rather than a "clump of cells"  the "clump of cells" analogy is intellectually lazy, overly simplistic and honestly quite sad.  but carry on, sleep well, but some of this was really hard to read

I can’t believe YOU attended Marquette.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on June 25, 2022, 12:19:24 AM
For folks that lean right, the evolution of the Clarence Thomas-Ginny Thomas plot has to make you feel kinda gross, right?

You really think they have an f’n shame at this point?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on June 25, 2022, 12:22:57 AM
Had RBG resigned, as she should have, during BO's presidency, today's event would not have taken place. So ultimately, the selfish, terminally ill justice, who was the guiding light for women's rights...fooked over women, aina?

You’re truly an appalling human being, and I use “human being” loosely here.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 25, 2022, 12:49:28 AM
Had RBG resigned, as she should have, during BO's presidency, today's event would not have taken place. So ultimately, the selfish, terminally ill justice, who was the guiding light for women's rights...fooked over women, aina?

Or if Merrick Garland was confirmed and allowed a hearing and the Senate didn't force leaving open for almost a year.  (A record vacancy.)
Or forcing through a justice 29 days before an election (a record SC confirmation).
All nominated from TFG who still has too many unanswered questions about his own election and then some (to put it nicely)makes this really stink of high holy hell even worse.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Mutaman on June 25, 2022, 01:34:16 AM
Today reminds me that  as an enthusiastic Clinton supporter back in 2016, the political bog at MUScoop was an incredibly lonely place to post. But her goddamned emails.
Be that as it may, I'm not going to come on here today and say -I told you so.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 25, 2022, 01:48:56 AM
This poll was in the news earlier this month.


AP-NORC poll details rift between lay Catholics and bishops
By DAVID CRARY
June 3, 2022
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-religion-government-and-politics-a43a25ff7ffe1e340c26f985de7df95a
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 25, 2022, 01:54:27 AM
And since these poor excuses for judges are all about the "founders intent" maybe these should reach back to the Independent era period.  From a reliable source National Geographic.


How U.S. abortion laws went from nonexistent to acrimonious

Most scholars say that at the nation's founding ending a pregnancy wasn’t illegal—or even controversial. Here’s a look at the complex early history of abortion in the United States.

BYERIN BLAKEMORE
PUBLISHED MAY 17, 2022
13 MIN READ
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 25, 2022, 06:39:44 AM
and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

Are we supposed to believe what Brett Kavanaugh says this time?  Why?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 25, 2022, 07:15:10 AM
And since these poor excuses for judges are all about the "founders intent" maybe these should reach back to the Independent era period.  From a reliable source National Geographic.


How U.S. abortion laws went from nonexistent to acrimonious

Most scholars say that at the nation's founding ending a pregnancy wasn’t illegal—or even controversial. Here’s a look at the complex early history of abortion in the United States.

BYERIN BLAKEMORE
PUBLISHED MAY 17, 2022
13 MIN READ
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states

And the Founders clearly were not only OK with slavery, but in some notable cases owned slaves themselves. Sorry, Clarence...but you should be fine with this given you are an Originalist*

*in much the same vein as Scalia, when it suited his Federalist Society arguments, and to be ignored when it did not.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 25, 2022, 07:49:02 AM
Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.

This is stupid. Abortion saved my wife's life. Her second miscarriage required a DNC, which is considered an abortion process to remove tissue from a miscarried fetus. Not a baby, which does not exist until birth and absolutely cannot survive outside the womb until 20 weeks, a fetus.

Without that abortive process, my wife would be dead and neither my daughter nor son would be alive. Our abortion didn't kill a miscarried fetus, it saved a life and allowed the creation of two more.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 25, 2022, 08:44:16 AM
Sanger was the racist eugenist that founded planned parenthood and wanted to eliminate black and other minority races.

Henry Ford was a virulent anti-Semite and racist who won praise from the likes of a certain German dictator.
Therefore, the Mustang and Explorer are bad.
#ziggylogic
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 25, 2022, 08:52:39 AM
Whiny mediocre white person claims victimhood.

Why with the ad hominems? All TAMU said is that he can't force his belief on others. All I am saying is that the trans community wants me to believe that men can be women, women can be men and some can be in between. I honestly believe they believe that but don't force that belief on me or my grand daughter when she is in school (It will be required in NJ schools in the fall).
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: reinko on June 25, 2022, 09:20:50 AM
Why with the ad hominems? All TAMU said is that he can't force his belief on others. All I am saying is that the trans community wants me to believe that men can be women, women can be men and some can be in between. I honestly believe they believe that but don't force that belief on me or my grand daughter when she is in school (It will be required in NJ schools in the fall).

Still waiting for the person that is FORCING you to use their preferred pronouns.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 25, 2022, 09:43:00 AM
Why with the ad hominems? All TAMU said is that he can't force his belief on others. All I am saying is that the trans community wants me to believe that men can be women, women can be men and some can be in between. I honestly believe they believe that but don't force that belief on me or my grand daughter when she is in school (It will be required in NJ schools in the fall).

I guess my question, Miss warrior69, is why do you have such a problem with this?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 25, 2022, 09:47:42 AM
Why with the ad hominems? All TAMU said is that he can't force his belief on others. All I am saying is that the trans community wants me to believe that men can be women, women can be men and some can be in between. I honestly believe they believe that but don't force that belief on me or my grand daughter when she is in school (It will be required in NJ schools in the fall).

You are lying or mistaken about NJ schools. School employees are required to use preferred pronouns,  not students and certainly not their grandfathers. So again,  who is forcing you?

Also, this comparison is ridiculous.  The trans community is asking to be called one name instead of another. Pro life is asking women to risk life and limb and to make a massive financial commitment. The impacts are not nearly comparable
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 25, 2022, 09:57:14 AM
If the country stays together .. Dobbs will eventually be overturned, 100% certainty.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 10:21:42 AM
Why with the ad hominems? All TAMU said is that he can't force his belief on others. All I am saying is that the trans community wants me to believe that men can be women, women can be men and some can be in between. I honestly believe they believe that but don't force that belief on me or my grand daughter when she is in school (It will be required in NJ schools in the fall).

Don’t teach your granddaughter to be a respectful human being? Okay, you got it miss.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 10:41:42 AM
For those who are “pro life,” why is there not universal healthcare, universal childcare, and paid family and medical leave?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 25, 2022, 10:50:23 AM
was this supposed to be funny?  i can't believe some of you even attended marquette...or if ya did...why?  trying to feel sorry for some of you too and how lonely you have got to be without some kind of spiritual foundation to appreciate the sanctity of life rather than a "clump of cells"  the "clump of cells" analogy is intellectually lazy, overly simplistic and honestly quite sad.  but carry on, sleep well, but some of this was really hard to read
I mean, yeah, it is difficult to say which fable is more ridiculous, the DC-8 flying, hydrogen-bombing alien, or the deceitful talking snake fooling the rib-woman about the magic apple.

Don't get me started on ol' Joe Smith's disappearing golden plates that proclaimed he was god's chosen.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 25, 2022, 10:51:59 AM
For those who are “pro life,” why is there not universal healthcare, universal childcare, and paid family and medical leave?

Fund this stuff instead of tax cuts? Are you mad?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 25, 2022, 10:56:44 AM
Fund this stuff instead of tax cuts? Are you mad?
If everyone just relied on themselves to get stuff done, people would be much more successful and happy. Instead, a lot of people want to be controlled and supported. To each their own.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 25, 2022, 10:58:44 AM
i can't believe some of you even attended marquette...or if ya did...why?

The easiest thing is to just throw this back at you. Why did you go to Marquette, roQQet?

To learn how to spread conspiracy theories and lies? To worship the least-Christian man in America -- a serial adulterer who bears false witness as a habit, who had peaceful protesters forcibly moved from a park so he could hold an upside-down bible for a perverse photo op, and who doesn't practice any religion but nonetheless weaponizes religion in order to glorify himself? To have no compassion for the most vulnerable in our society, such as gay and transgender youth? What do you think Jesus would have say about all of that?

To answer your question, though, I went to Marquette to step out of my comfort zone and to have the opportunity to interact with people of all religions, races, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc. I also went to Marquette because it had a fine Journalism program, and because it's in a major metro area, and yes, because MU was just months removed from winning the national title when I made my decision.

I didn't go to Marquette to get "indoctrinated" (the word you like to use) by any religious group's teachings. I met many Catholics (and non-Catholics) who felt strongly about their beliefs in many areas, including abortion, but who did not insist upon forcing their beliefs on others. Many of those people became my best friends for life.

Thanks for asking! Now I feel even better about my decision to attend our alma mater.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 11:02:15 AM
If everyone just relied on themselves to get stuff done, people would be much more successful and happy. Instead, a lot of people want to be controlled and supported. To each their own.

But women can’t choose to have their abortion.

The pretzels you’ll twist yourself into…
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 25, 2022, 11:07:42 AM
But women can’t choose to have their abortion.

The pretzels you’ll twist yourself into…
Some states they can, some they can’t. Because it’s not in the constitution. Anything not in there is thrown back to the states. Unless they are raped or have health issues, they can avoid abortion altogether by…..not having sex! People don’t get to justify murdering babies because of poor sexual decisions. Funny how my wife never had a baby until we were ready….it’s like you can magically plan for it somehow…
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 25, 2022, 11:10:34 AM
If everyone just relied on themselves to get stuff done, people would be much more successful and happy. Instead, a lot of people want to be controlled and supported. To each their own.

You're literally posting this on the government-created internet, using technology created with government funding. Nearly every item you use today can be traced back to the government.
Driving to the grocery store today? Government roads will get you there.
How'd the food get there? Government transportation network.
Taking a relaxing walk? Enjoy your government sidewalks and park.
Have an emergency? You'll call the government for help.

If everyone relied on themselves we'd still be living in caves, doofus.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 25, 2022, 11:11:10 AM
Some states they can, some they can’t. Because it’s not in the constitution. Anything not in there is thrown back to the states. Unless they are raped or have health issues, they can avoid abortion altogether by…..not having sex! People don’t get to justify murdering babies because of poor sexual decisions. Funny how my wife never had a baby until we were ready….it’s like you can magically plan for it somehow…

Condoms break dumbass, birth control fails. It’s such false equivalency.

It’s all good though, I’ll be expecting your check to all of those parents who are unable to support those children you love so much.

Oh wait, you don’t give a crap what happens to them after they’re born.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: reinko on June 25, 2022, 11:17:03 AM
If everyone just relied on themselves to get stuff done, people would be much more successful and happy. Instead, a lot of people want to be controlled and supported. To each their own.

Still waiting to see who you know was forced by the government to get a vaccine.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 11:20:28 AM
Some states they can, some they can’t. Because it’s not in the constitution. Anything not in there is thrown back to the states. Unless they are raped or have health issues, they can avoid abortion altogether by…..not having sex! People don’t get to justify murdering babies because of poor sexual decisions. Funny how my wife never had a baby until we were ready….it’s like you can magically plan for it somehow…

Isn’t it their body their choice though?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 25, 2022, 11:21:21 AM
Condoms break dumbass, birth control fails. It’s such false equivalency.

It’s all good though, I’ll be expecting your check to all of those parents who are unable to support those children you love so much.

Oh wait, you don’t give a crap what happens to them after they’re born.
Not my job, I have my own kids. And I already pay taxes so let me be. Responsibility and accountability, two things that are often missing in today’s world. Someone’s bad choices are someone else’s responsibility. It’s never my fault. Victimhood mentality gone wild.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 25, 2022, 11:24:17 AM
Not my job, I have my own kids. And I already pay taxes so let me be.

Just as Jesus taught.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 25, 2022, 11:24:43 AM
Not my job, I have my own kids. And I already pay taxes so let me be. Responsibility and accountability, two things that are often missing in today’s world. Someone’s bad choices are someone else’s responsibility. It’s never my fault. Victimhood mentality gone wild.

Just keep paying your taxes, provided you are okay with doubling them. Or do you only care about the well-being of the unborn fetus and not the living child?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 25, 2022, 11:25:59 AM
For folks that lean right, the evolution of the Clarence Thomas-Ginny Thomas plot has to make you feel kinda gross, right?

As someone who would be classified as leaning right, the hijacking of the "right" by fundamentalists and the alt-right is beyond unsettling and gross.  Without wholeheartedly swinging to the left, its political no mans land.  The consummate joy of the two party system
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 11:26:47 AM
Not my job, I have my own kids. And I already pay taxes so let me be. Responsibility and accountability, two things that are often missing in today’s world. Someone’s bad choices are someone else’s responsibility. It’s never my fault. Victimhood mentality gone wild.

So just let people make the decisions that are best for them. Unless it’s a pregnant woman. Then control that decision and don’t let her make her own choice about her own body.

Pretzel twisting gone wild.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 25, 2022, 11:45:21 AM
So just let people make the decisions that are best for them. Unless it’s a pregnant woman. Then control that decision and don’t let her make her own choice about her own body.

Pretzel twisting gone wild.
I don’t have a right to kill babies. Agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 11:47:24 AM
I don’t have a right to kill babies. Agree to disagree.

Nobody does. Nor has anyone ever.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 25, 2022, 11:47:32 AM
Some states they can, some they can’t. Because it’s not in the constitution. Anything not in there is thrown back to the states. Unless they are raped or have health issues, they can avoid abortion altogether by…..not having sex! People don’t get to justify murdering babies because of poor sexual decisions. Funny how my wife never had a baby until we were ready….it’s like you can magically plan for it somehow…

The 9th amendment makes clear that there are inalienable rights not expressly written into the constitution that are protected by the constitution.

No sane person would believe that having a right to make a private decision with their doctor, about what is best for their body, is not a right of all citizens.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 25, 2022, 12:42:14 PM
I mean, yeah, it is difficult to say which fable is more ridiculous, the DC-8 flying, hydrogen-bombing alien, or the deceitful talking snake fooling the rib-woman about the magic apple.

Don't get me started on ol' Joe Smith's disappearing golden plates that proclaimed he was god's chosen.

"Book of Mormon" play goes there in scene 1 if you haven't already seen.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 25, 2022, 01:06:14 PM
I don’t have a right to kill babies. Agree to disagree.

Ah, so it doesn't affect you, but you want to control what others do.

Maybe you should just 'let them be'.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 25, 2022, 01:16:03 PM
If the country stays together .. Dobbs will eventually be overturned, 100% certainty.

I mean, based on what?  Barrett is 50, Gorsuch is 54, Kavanaugh is 57.  The four oldest justices are Thomas at 74, Alito at 72, Sotomayor at 68, and Roberts at 67. So long as Roberts is acting, he is unlikely to vote to overturn Dobbs despite his refusal to join the majority.  He still fancies himself a conservative at heart, and his primary goal is to leave a legacy of being the ribbon at the middle of a tug of war rope. I don't think he'd overturn a huge decision from his own court.   

That means the Dems would need to replace two of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts without losing Sotomayor during a R administration.  If the Republicans get even one younger nomination out of the four oldest, that would likely give them four justices at or near 60.  It isn't overreaction to say that using actuarial tables and a 50/50 chance for either party to win the White House in a given election, Dobbs is likely to stand as long as Roe did.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 25, 2022, 01:26:01 PM
Had RBG resigned, as she should have, during BO's presidency, today's event would not have taken place. So ultimately, the selfish, terminally ill justice, who was the guiding light for women's rights...fooked over women, aina?

This is true and I have trouble seeing how even the most liberal of Democrats could disagree with it.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 25, 2022, 01:29:39 PM
Some states they can, some they can’t. Because it’s not in the constitution. Anything not in there is thrown back to the states. Unless they are raped or have health issues, they can avoid abortion altogether by…..not having sex! People don’t get to justify murdering babies because of poor sexual decisions. Funny how my wife never had a baby until we were ready….it’s like you can magically plan for it somehow…

So you and your wife were 100% abstinent before you were ready to have kids? And after you had the max number of kids you were ready for you were 100% abstinent until either you or your wife was physically unable to have kids? Cause that's the only way to guarantee not having an unplanned pregnancy.

I assume  you also support comprehensive sex education and increasing access to birth control?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 25, 2022, 01:57:26 PM
This is true and I have trouble seeing how even the most liberal of Democrats could disagree with it.

I think that's been widely accepted for the past 6 years now. Though it certainly isn't aided by the rank hypocrisy of holding Merrick Garland off for a year then rushing Barrett through just weeks before an election they expected to lose.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 25, 2022, 01:59:28 PM
This is true and I have trouble seeing how even the most liberal of Democrats could disagree with it.

I'm not sure many do disagree with it.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 25, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
I dunno. Sure seems like Vander Blue Man Group popped a hemorrhoid over it, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 25, 2022, 03:33:11 PM
I'm not sure many do disagree with it.

Wades immediately disagreed and blamed the current SCOTUS.

Like many things, both can be correct.  RBG held on too long and damaged the Dem SCOTUS strategy and the current SCOTUS misrepresented things/Garland got hosed.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 03:44:41 PM
Wades immediately disagreed and blamed the current SCOTUS.

Like many things, both can be correct.  RBG held on too long and damaged the Dem SCOTUS strategy and the current SCOTUS misrepresented things/Garland got hosed.

Yes. 4never blamed RBG for Roe v. Wade being overturned. I said that the SC justices’ jobs are to uphold the law, not to play politics. So on that subject it wasn’t RBG’s fault.

Should she have given up her seat? Yes. That’s a different conversation.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 25, 2022, 05:31:34 PM
You are lying or mistaken about NJ schools. School employees are required to use preferred pronouns,  not students and certainly not their grandfathers. So again,  who is forcing you?

Also, this comparison is ridiculous.  The trans community is asking to be called one name instead of another. Pro life is asking women to risk life and limb and to make a massive financial commitment. The impacts are not nearly comparable

OK, but she is forced to use the same bathroom/lockeroom with a boy who thinks he is a girl regardless of my grand daughters beliefs who still believes he is a boy. I would not want my grand daughter raped like the two girls in Virginia while the powers that be tried to cover it up. Just because some student says they identify as the opposite sex/gender does not make it so.

People force their beliefs on others all the time.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 25, 2022, 06:00:13 PM
OK, but she is forced to use the same bathroom/lockeroom with a boy who thinks he is a girl regardless of my grand daughters beliefs who still believes he is a boy. I would not want my grand daughter raped like the two girls in Virginia while the powers that be tried to cover it up. Just because some student says they identify as the opposite sex/gender does not make it so.

People force their beliefs on others all the time.

Im sad your granddaughter feels that way (assuming you arent just putting your beliefs on her). Your granddaughter is free to wait until the trans student is done changing and can feel however she wants about it. No one is forcing anyone to believe anything.

And that VA case has nothing to with which bathroom trans students use.  They had previously had consensual sex multiple times and he the trans student had previously assaulted another student in a classroom. They were a predator who happened to be trans and that assault happened to take place in a bathroom. Statistically a united States sentator is more likely to assault someone in a bathroom than a trans person.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 25, 2022, 06:05:59 PM
Im sad your granddaughter feels that way (assuming you arent just putting your beliefs on her). Your granddaughter is free to wait until the trans student is done changing and can feel however she wants about it. No one is forcing anyone to believe anything.

And that VA case has nothing to with which bathroom trans students use.  They had previously had consensual sex multiple times and he the trans student had previously assaulted another student in a classroom. They were a predator who happened to be trans and that assault happened to take place in a bathroom. Statistically a united States sentator is more likely to assault someone in a bathroom than a trans person.

QFT
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 25, 2022, 06:43:52 PM
The easiest thing is to just throw this back at you. Why did you go to Marquette, roQQet?

To learn how to spread conspiracy theories and lies? To worship the least-Christian man in America -- a serial adulterer who bears false witness as a habit, who had peaceful protesters forcibly moved from a park so he could hold an upside-down bible for a perverse photo op, and who doesn't practice any religion but nonetheless weaponizes religion in order to glorify himself? To have no compassion for the most vulnerable in our society, such as gay and transgender youth? What do you think Jesus would have say about all of that?

To answer your question, though, I went to Marquette to step out of my comfort zone and to have the opportunity to interact with people of all religions, races, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc. I also went to Marquette because it had a fine Journalism program, and because it's in a major metro area, and yes, because MU was just months removed from winning the national title when I made my decision.

I didn't go to Marquette to get "indoctrinated" (the word you like to use) by any religious group's teachings. I met many Catholics (and non-Catholics) who felt strongly about their beliefs in many areas, including abortion, but who did not insist upon forcing their beliefs on others. Many of those people became my best friends for life.

Thanks for asking! Now I feel even better about my decision to attend our alma mater.

  well at least he didn't shower with his daughter and turn her into a promiscuous sex/drug addict...gotta wonder if he showered with hunter too?  look what happened to him.

i'm talking about MU promoting an environment of respecting life which i would expect a catholic/jesuit institution should do

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 25, 2022, 07:44:21 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPJVjlYHwWsZRxm/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 21Jumpstreet on June 25, 2022, 08:45:26 PM
OK, but she is forced to use the same bathroom/lockeroom with a boy who thinks he is a girl regardless of my grand daughters beliefs who still believes he is a boy. I would not want my grand daughter raped like the two girls in Virginia while the powers that be tried to cover it up. Just because some student says they identify as the opposite sex/gender does not make it so.

People force their beliefs on others all the time.

Question for you, an honest one, have you asked your granddaughter? Candidly, I don’t remember if you mentioned her age. I ask because my dad sounds like you. My son’s have grew up going to a Montessori school with a young, trans girl, well, she is a girl, but I’m making sure to give you the details. Needless to say, my grade school aged kids had no issue and when asked about using the same bathroom, calling her a girl, looked at me like I was speaking gibberish. They said, well she isn’t harming anyone and it’s making her feel accepted, so we are good. The world is evolving, thank goodness.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 25, 2022, 09:22:12 PM
  well at least he didn't shower with his daughter and turn her into a promiscuous sex/drug addict...gotta wonder if he showered with hunter too?  look what happened to him.

i'm talking about MU promoting an environment of respecting life which i would expect a catholic/jesuit institution should do

If only Marquette had taught you to respect the lives of the US Capitol Police officers who were savagely attacked by your fellow cultists.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Skatastrophy on June 25, 2022, 10:08:35 PM
Y'all are wild for trying to have rational conversations with religious extremists.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 25, 2022, 10:17:52 PM
Y'all are wild for trying to have rational conversations with religious extremists.
;D

 ;D   So true.

Every religious extremist wants to control the lives of other people -especially women.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 25, 2022, 10:30:17 PM
I've tried to read all of this thread tonight and all I can think of is one word:

Yikes!

The decision is done and now the states will decide individual abortion policies. Clear and simple. The way I honestly believe the framers of our Constitution intended.

There are two points I'd stress and hope everyone begins to think toward: 

(1) We spend too much of our time worried about the supply side of abortion. Maybe if our preachers did a better job of preaching, our ministers ministering, our priests working with people and our Rabbis teaching, we could make the whole issue of abortion moot. While I'm strongly pro life, I'm the first to acknowledge that many of us who are pro-life are asking the state to do what we can't.

(2) To the end of limiting demand, those of us who are pro-life need to sit down with our pro-choice friends and neighbors. Talk about common ground and our mutual desire to have abortion as a last resort. Let's talk about unwanted pregnancy and ways to better prevent it. Let's talk about more support for women who carry their children against the odds -- about preserving and fostering life AFTER it leaves the womb!

Finally, Clarence Thomas needs to shut his mouth. If anyone threatens gay and lesbian marital rights, me, a full-blown Republican, will be standing in unison with my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Period.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 25, 2022, 10:49:15 PM
Y'all are wild for trying to have rational conversations with religious extremists.

Is wokeness officially a religion now? Religion, cult, same thing.


Finally, Clarence Thomas needs to shut his mouth. If anyone threatens gay and lesbian marital rights, me, a full-blown Republican, will be standing in unison with my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Period.

It’s not happening, Great for fundraising but unlike Roe, those decisions are on solid ground. A very good analysis of the “they’re not stopping with abortion” hysteria being pretty much paranoia and little more. The key being Roe dealt with the moral question of life, the others do not.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/why-other-fundamental-rights-are-safe-at-least-for-now/?fbclid=IwAR3rahnZhggwh_YTML4jy_jl5vBh9-YHrT7EF4bR5Cp80kHhtr6K0gyklAY


This is pre decision without seeing all of the assurances in the opinion regarding the other three.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/05/will-dobbs-be-a-ticket-good-for-this-right-only/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 25, 2022, 10:53:33 PM
It’s not happening, Great for fundraising but unlike Roe, those decisions are on solid ground. A very good analysis of the “they’re not stopping with abortion” hysteria being pretty much paranoia and little more. The key being Roe dealt with the moral question of life, the others do not.


I tend to agree with you but all Justice Thomas did was inflame the left today. Bad idea.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 25, 2022, 10:55:52 PM
Republican governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire all vow to uphold abortion rights in their states.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 25, 2022, 10:57:02 PM
Do people who use "woke" unironically think anyone takes them seriously?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 25, 2022, 11:01:57 PM
Is wokeness officially a religion now? Religion, cult, same thing.

It’s not happening, Great for fundraising but unlike Roe, those decisions are on solid ground. A very good analysis of the “they’re not stopping with abortion” hysteria being pretty much paranoia and little more. The key being Roe dealt with the moral question of life, the others do not.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/why-other-fundamental-rights-are-safe-at-least-for-now/?fbclid=IwAR3rahnZhggwh_YTML4jy_jl5vBh9-YHrT7EF4bR5Cp80kHhtr6K0gyklAY


This is pre decision without seeing all of the assurances in the opinion regarding the other three.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/05/will-dobbs-be-a-ticket-good-for-this-right-only/

When a Supreme Court justice is writing about the need to look at those decisions, it’s not paranoia. Just isn’t. Whether it will ever be overturned or not, a Supreme Court justice is saying it needs to be looked at…
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 25, 2022, 11:12:01 PM
Julie Jones, chairwoman of the law firm Ropes & Gray, wrote to employees yesterday in a memo that was obtained by the NYT's DealBook:

“As a woman, I have a profound feeling of vulnerability caused by the elimination of a longstanding right of women — a right that affects their bodies and their agency. As a person with privilege, I recognize and worry about the decision’s disproportionate impact on women with limited resources. As an American, I fear the divisive nature of this topic will further fracture an already angry and divided citizenry."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 26, 2022, 01:10:28 AM
Do people who use "woke" unironically think anyone takes them seriously?
Do people who think they are women when they are men or vice versa and people who think men can have babies think anyone takes them seriously?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 26, 2022, 01:12:16 AM
If only Marquette had taught you to respect the lives of the US Capitol Police officers who were savagely attacked by your fellow cultists.
How about all the police officers murdered during the burn loot and murder riots in 2020?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 06:44:24 AM
How about all the police officers murdered during the burn loot and murder riots in 2020?

Keep trolling, chicos.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: reinko on June 26, 2022, 06:47:17 AM
How about all the police officers murdered during the burn loot and murder riots in 2020?

Still waiting for you to identify one person who was FORCED to get vaccinated.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 26, 2022, 06:52:47 AM
I've tried to read all of this thread tonight and all I can think of is one word:

Yikes!

The decision is done and now the states will decide individual abortion policies. Clear and simple. The way I honestly believe the framers of our Constitution intended.

I am unclear about what you believe here...are you saying you believe the framers wanted abortion rights to be decided by the states? Or all rights? Should equal rights for gays be decided on a state-by-state basis, for instance?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Spaniel with a Short Tail on June 26, 2022, 07:24:04 AM
I just started reading this thread but I'm surprised it has remained open this long. Maybe it didn't follow the usual pattern of such threads due to posts from the usual suspects. Time will tell for me.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 26, 2022, 07:25:44 AM
How about all the police officers murdered during the burn loot and murder riots in 2020?

There was one, and he was killed by right wing extremists.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 26, 2022, 08:31:20 AM
More cops of died from COVID than violence over the last two years.   

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 26, 2022, 10:41:35 AM
You know nothing about my views. 

Sanger was the racist eugenist that founded planned parenthood and wanted to eliminate black and other minority races.

This is profoundly false. She did believe in eugenics, but was different than most in that she did not discuss it in racial terms, rather economic and intellectual terms. While still repulsive in retrospect, it has been rewritten by right-wing individuals as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, Sanger opposed abortion, and many of her actions around the world were designed to protect the unborn, by providing access to quality birth control so they could make their own rational decision on when it was best to have children.

Also, as opposed to racial qualifications for eugenics, the group she adamantly opposed and found to be the lowest form, were religious fanatics, who due to religious beliefs opposed birth control and in her opinion over-populated the nation with idiots that would ultimately hurt society.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 26, 2022, 11:16:12 AM
I just started reading this thread but I'm surprised it has remained open this long. Maybe it didn't follow the usual pattern of such threads due to posts from the usual suspects. Time will tell for me.

Oh it has.  We've gotten the bingo of coup attempts, Hunters laptop, Biden familial matters, "your god/king", and others from the usual suspects.  I'm shocked we haven't gotten a Biden ice cream reference though, maybe thats what's keeping us going
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 11:22:34 AM
Biden ice cream

Vanilla Soft Serve?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 26, 2022, 11:33:45 AM
I see some states have codified legal abortions in their state constitutions like Kansas and I believe California is moving in that direction. The real battle however will be in granting personhood to the unborn. There is also a test case in Arizona that the ACLU is presently challenging. I can see some states declaring the unborn fetus a person in their state constitutions. At some point SCOTUS will have to decide that sticky issue as to when the fetus could be considered a person or not. They have already ruled that corporations have the same equal protections under the 14th amendment as individual persons do. I find it hard that 9 justices could rule that and actual human being is not a person. The challenge is at what point in development would 14th amendment equal protections for the unborn kick in.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 26, 2022, 12:30:08 PM
This is profoundly false. She did believe in eugenics, but was different than most in that she did not discuss it in racial terms, rather economic and intellectual terms. While still repulsive in retrospect, it has been rewritten by right-wing individuals as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, Sanger opposed abortion, and many of her actions around the world were designed to protect the unborn, by providing access to quality birth control so they could make their own rational decision on when it was best to have children.

Also, as opposed to racial qualifications for eugenics, the group she adamantly opposed and found to be the lowest form, were religious fanatics, who due to religious beliefs opposed birth control and in her opinion over-populated the nation with idiots that would ultimately hurt society.

Zingy being less than truthful?

Come on, man.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 26, 2022, 12:39:47 PM
I see some states have codified legal abortions in their state constitutions like Kansas and I believe California is moving in that direction. The real battle however will be in granting personhood to the unborn. There is also a test case in Arizona that the ACLU is presently challenging. I can see some states declaring the unborn fetus a person in their state constitutions. At some point SCOTUS will have to decide that sticky issue as to when the fetus could be considered a person or not. They have already ruled that corporations have the same equal protections under the 14th amendment as individual persons do. I find it hard that 9 justices could rule that and actual human being is not a person. The challenge is at what point in development would 14th amendment equal protections for the unborn kick in.

The unintended consequences of this are mind-bogglingly stupid.
They would, for example, quite likely end in vitro fertilization and other forms of reproductive assistance.
Or what if such a clinic goes out of business? Who births and cares for the embryos?
Since obesity is a health risk for an embryo, should overweight women be charged with child endangerment if they become pregnant?
Does a pregnant woman have a right to receive parental support (retroactively, if necessary) from the baby's father?
Do businesses need to cover prenatal care for women impregnated by their workers?
Can a child sue his mother for being around secondhand smoke while pregnant?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 01:07:33 PM
I find it hard that 9 justices could rule that and actual human being is not a person.

A 9-week-old fetus is not “an actual human being.” The woman pregnant with that fetus IS an actual human being, though, and her rights were just dialed back a half-century.

But I do agree that some of these SCOTUS justices are such religious zealots that they could deny the women even more rights to control their own bodies.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 26, 2022, 01:32:31 PM
This is profoundly false. She did believe in eugenics, but was different than most in that she did not discuss it in racial terms, rather economic and intellectual terms. While still repulsive in retrospect, it has been rewritten by right-wing individuals as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, Sanger opposed abortion, and many of her actions around the world were designed to protect the unborn, by providing access to quality birth control so they could make their own rational decision on when it was best to have children.

Also, as opposed to racial qualifications for eugenics, the group she adamantly opposed and found to be the lowest form, were religious fanatics, who due to religious beliefs opposed birth control and in her opinion over-populated the nation with idiots that would ultimately hurt society.

Defending Sanger is a twist I didn't expect from you.

Do Woodrow Wilson next, on the next episode of defend undefendable progressives.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 26, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
If they had aborted you as a 9-week fetus, would they have killed you?  Would you still have been around seven months later?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 04:39:56 PM
If they had aborted you as a 9-week fetus, would they have killed you?  Would you still have been around seven months later?

I wouldn't know and wouldn't care.

If they had aborted Hitler or Saddam or Putin as a 9-week-old fetus, imagine how much better the world would have been.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 26, 2022, 04:57:29 PM
The unintended consequences of this are mind-bogglingly stupid.
They would, for example, quite likely end in vitro fertilization and other forms of reproductive assistance.
Or what if such a clinic goes out of business? Who births and cares for the embryos?
Since obesity is a health risk for an embryo, should overweight women be charged with child endangerment if they become pregnant?
Does a pregnant woman have a right to receive parental support (retroactively, if necessary) from the baby's father?
Do businesses need to cover prenatal care for women impregnated by their workers?
Can a child sue his mother for being around secondhand smoke while pregnant?

Yes they are, but none the less we could be headed in this direction.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 26, 2022, 05:07:36 PM
In defense of her state's ban on abortions, even in cases of rape, incest or saving the mother's life, South Dakota's governor says it's to "build stronger families."
Because nothing builds a strong family like dying after birthing your rapist's child.

These people are monsters.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/gov-kristi-noem-defends-south-dakotas-abortion-ban-without-any-exceptions-to-build-stronger-families-not-reason-for-another-tragedy-to-occur/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 05:25:22 PM
GOP lawmaker calls Roe ruling ‘victory for white life’ as Trump rally cheers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/26/mary-miller-white-life-trump-rally/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F37358b0%2F62b87e16cfe8a21601c340fb%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F29%2F72%2F62b87e16cfe8a21601c340fb&wp_cu=b1005792a416de1fbe1f17e5cf366b7d%7CB1FF71CA724A36FAE0530100007F88D6

A Republican lawmaker called the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the nationwide right to abortion established nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade a “victory for white life,” which was met with cheers at a rally held by former president Donald Trump.

“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,” Rep. Mary E. Miller (R) said at the rally Saturday night in Mendon, Ill., referring to Trump’s former campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

She began clapping her hands as spectators, some clutching red “Save America” placards, also began to applaud.

Her remark drew widespread condemnation on social media, and Miller’s team swiftly issued an explanation for what it deemed to be “a mix-up of words.”

Miller’s spokesman, Isaiah Wartman, told the Associated Press that the Illinois Republican misread her prepared speech and was supposed to declare the divisive court ruling a victory for the “right to life.”

The words “white life” became a top trend on Twitter in the United States.

“Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard ‘white life’ and didn’t flinch. They applauded,” tweeted columnist Ahmed Baba, who writes for the Independent.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 26, 2022, 05:52:14 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/second-civil-war-us-abortion

"The question is no longer whether there will be a civil conflict in America. The question is how the sides will divide, and who will prevail."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 26, 2022, 05:56:53 PM
One more step toward Christian nationalist fascism.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 26, 2022, 05:59:37 PM

Do Woodrow Wilson next, on the next episode of defend undefendable progressives.

Not sure what Woodrow Wilson has to do with your patently false statements regarding Sanger.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 26, 2022, 06:01:35 PM
One more step toward Christian nationalist fascism.

Religion, the great killer
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 26, 2022, 06:21:28 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/second-civil-war-us-abortion

"The question is no longer whether there will be a civil conflict in America. The question is how the sides will divide, and who will prevail."

I think such talk is fearmongering.
It's not happening. At least not anytime soon, over current issues.
Unlike past civil conflicts, here and elsewhere, there's no geographical, ethnic or even major ideological divide to drive a civil war in present-day America. There's no single issue as powerful as slavery to divide people.
The reality is, the great majority of Americans have really similar views on most issues, and very, very few of us are ready and willing to kill our neighbors over the slim differences.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 26, 2022, 06:54:28 PM

The reality is, the great majority of Americans have really similar views on most issues, and very, very few of us are ready and willing to kill our neighbors over the slim differences.

Correct .. we're beyond the usual civil war with guns and ammo.  It'll start with the GOP winning (or not) in 2024 and California seceding, with the GOP eager to remove their 55 electoral votes from ever contaminating an election again.  No shots fired, just a lot of lawyers. 

And don't give me any of this "it can't be done" crap.   We've learned this week .. past laws are flexible depending on who is in power. 

Also, it would make for great TV.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 26, 2022, 07:18:12 PM
I'm thinkin' y'all are wrong. The divide is too great and its a bridge too far. Hopefully I'm wrong, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 26, 2022, 07:19:01 PM
Correct .. we're beyond the usual civil war with guns and ammo.  It'll start with the GOP winning (or not) in 2024 and California seceding, with the GOP eager to remove their 55 electoral votes from ever contaminating an election again.  No shots fired, just a lot of lawyers. 

And don't give me any of this "it can't be done" crap.   We've learned this week .. past laws are flexible depending on who is in power. 

Also, it would make for great TV.

Well, I don't think that's going to happen either, but if there are no shots fired, you can't really call it a civil war, can you?
Also
<whispers> It can't be done
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 26, 2022, 07:31:02 PM
Correct .. we're beyond the usual civil war with guns and ammo.  It'll start with the GOP winning (or not) in 2024 and California seceding, with the GOP eager to remove their 55 electoral votes from ever contaminating an election again.  No shots fired, just a lot of lawyers. 

And don't give me any of this "it can't be done" crap.   We've learned this week .. past laws are flexible depending on who is in power. 

Also, it would make for great TV.

Are you kidding me?

For those of you who believe this, back in 1861 a group of states angry over the abolitionist movement and fearful that federal law will ban slavery forever elected to separate from the United States and form their own nation, Their philosophical view was that state law prevailed over federal law and the most perfect union was spelled out in the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution of the United States.

Millions of people suffered tremendously as we worked to hold our union together. Hundreds of thousands of troops died and ultimately, the Union of our nation held. We went on to become the greatest nation the world has ever seen. We continue to believe "of Many. One."

We have had a lot of challenges in our nation since. The Depression damn near destroyed our Republic as we know it. We were nearly wiped off the face of the earth during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had to defend ourselves and the western world from Nazi and Japanese aggression. We had Watergate, Vietnam and open efforts to overthrow unfriendly nations and yet we held together. All of the problems I just described were a far greater threat to the American people than our divide over Roe vs. Wade.

It's time our nation get it together. We keep trying to govern for eight standard deviations to right or left of the mean and we scream about the most preposterous circumstances possible and somehow claim they're the norm. If we step back from the hype and the media manipulation by both sides of this issue and focus on reasonable probability, we will be fine.

We are the United States of America. We're better than the we have been acting as of late!

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 26, 2022, 07:59:59 PM
You have my vote.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 26, 2022, 08:25:12 PM
In defense of her state's ban on abortions, even in cases of rape, incest or saving the mother's life, South Dakota's governor says it's to "build stronger families."
Because nothing builds a strong family like dying after birthing your rapist's child.

These people are monsters.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/gov-kristi-noem-defends-south-dakotas-abortion-ban-without-any-exceptions-to-build-stronger-families-not-reason-for-another-tragedy-to-occur/

Yup, called this crap yesterday. Under the technicality of viable pregnancies.

Please someone try and defend this one. I unnatural carnal knowledgeing dare you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: LAZER on June 26, 2022, 09:11:20 PM
I'm thinkin' y'all are wrong. The divide is too great and its a bridge too far. Hopefully I'm wrong, hey?
If you truly think there’s going to be a Civil War I think it’s a good time reassess what news, content, and media you’re consuming. And to also just consume a lot less of it. I say this to both on left and right, because it seems people on both extremes are concerned about the potential of a Civil War.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2022, 09:14:00 PM
One more step toward Christian nationalist fascism.

Putin, Xi, Kim, MBS and others who hate America are giddy that religious zealots are taking over our country.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 26, 2022, 09:20:58 PM
This is profoundly false. She did believe in eugenics, but was different than most in that she did not discuss it in racial terms, rather economic and intellectual terms. While still repulsive in retrospect, it has been rewritten by right-wing individuals as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, Sanger opposed abortion, and many of her actions around the world were designed to protect the unborn, by providing access to quality birth control so they could make their own rational decision on when it was best to have children.

Also, as opposed to racial qualifications for eugenics, the group she adamantly opposed and found to be the lowest form, were religious fanatics, who due to religious beliefs opposed birth control and in her opinion over-populated the nation with idiots that would ultimately hurt society.

   never heard this spin before...where did you hear this one forget?  the view? joyless reid?  morning joe?  gotta be a crt based whopper
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: real chili 83 on June 26, 2022, 09:33:27 PM
A little perspective……

ND still sucks.

Smoked meats rule.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 26, 2022, 09:36:05 PM
There was one, and he was killed by right wing extremists.

David Dorn, the uncle of my wife’s professional mentor and 20 year friend? Your account is certainly different than the family told her. Please expand…
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 26, 2022, 09:39:40 PM
Not sure what Woodrow Wilson has to do with your patently false statements regarding Sanger.

He has egg on his face, so his only thing left to do is redirect the conversation and try to make you look like a bad human being. He’s a pro.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 26, 2022, 09:43:09 PM
By the way, remember how hard it was to be forced to wear a mask? Can you imagine being forced to give birth?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 26, 2022, 09:44:07 PM
He has egg on his face, so his only thing left to do is redirect the conversation and try to make you look like a bad human being. He’s a pro.

They are both race hating progressives.

Like I said, forgetful should be better than defending Sanger.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 26, 2022, 09:46:07 PM
They are both race hating progressives.

Like I said, forgetful should be better than defending Sanger.

Is correcting false statements defending someone?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 26, 2022, 10:59:36 PM

The reality is, the great majority of Americans have really similar views on most issues, and very, very few of us are ready and willing to kill our neighbors over the slim differences.

I hope your right. Reading the Superbar makes me wonder.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 03:58:52 AM
   never heard this spin before...where did you hear this one forget?  the view? joyless reid?  morning joe?  gotta be a crt based whopper

That’s a solid 9 out of 10
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 04:43:23 AM
A 9-week-old fetus is not “an actual human being.” The woman pregnant with that fetus IS an actual human being, though, and her rights were just dialed back a half-century.

But I do agree that some of these SCOTUS justices are such religious zealots that they could deny the women even more rights to control their own bodies.

That is your opinion and I respect that, but many would disagree with your opinion. The Court sent it back to the states to decide. I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide. Even if they granted personhood status it would not ban abortion it would only grant the fetus equal protection and many of these difficult decision would be decided on a case by case ruling.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 04:58:21 AM
...and so it begins.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/groups-seek-to-halt-arizona-personhood-law-after-roe-falls
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 06:17:54 AM
...and so it begins.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/groups-seek-to-halt-arizona-personhood-law-after-roe-falls

This is why we have to ban religion
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 27, 2022, 06:44:56 AM
The same people who couldn't bear to be forced to wear a facemask for a couple months seem to think there's no problem forcing women to carry and bear a child for 9 months.

My family would not exist without abortion. My wife would be dead and my children would never have been born. Abortion saves lives and saves families.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2022, 07:11:02 AM
That is your opinion and I respect that, but many would disagree with your opinion. The Court sent it back to the states to decide. I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide. Even if they granted personhood status it would not ban abortion it would only grant the fetus equal protection and many of these difficult decision would be decided on a case by case ruling.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745
And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That’s really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that’s what’s just been taken away from them. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 07:19:08 AM
I hope your right. Reading the Superbar makes me wonder.

Are you willing to kill a fellow Scooper over differences of opinions? Do you worry a fellow Scooper may kill you?
I know I'm not, on both counts.
Not even Ziggy.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: wadesworld on June 27, 2022, 07:27:46 AM
Are you willing to kill a fellow Scooper over differences of opinions? Do you worry a fellow Scooper may kill you?
I know I'm not, on both counts.
Not even Ziggy.

I would agree.  But I never thought a Scooper would stalk me and email my HR department, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2022, 07:47:49 AM
And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That’s really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that’s what’s just been taken away from them.

The small-government folks tie themselves up in extremely tight knots as they say it's OK for government to reach right into a woman's uterus.

I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide.

You're probably right about this. Scary times in America. Steps away from The Handmaid's Tale, with Christian religious zealots taking over all 3 branches of government and force everybody to adhere to their interpretations of both science and scripture.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 27, 2022, 08:10:38 AM
The small-government folks tie themselves up in extremely tight knots as they say it's OK for government to reach right into a woman's uterus.

You're probably right about this. Scary times in America. Steps away from The Handmaid's Tale, with Christian religious zealots taking over all 3 branches of government and force everybody to adhere to their interpretations of both science and scripture.
Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2022, 08:42:48 AM
Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.

That would be good, yes. Here's hoping that Trump is right (a phrase I never thought I'd say) in that this greatly motivates those who oppose government putting its grubby hands into women's uteruses.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 08:59:53 AM
And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That’s really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that’s what’s just been taken away from them.

Isn't the government, we the people, and at some point the courts are going to decide if a fetus is a person or not and has rights protected under the 14th amendment just as a pregnant woman has. Even in the Roe decision back in '73 the court said the states do have a compelling interest to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester and struggled over the question of personhood but instead referred to the viability of the fetus avoiding the legal can of worms that would come of declaring the fetus a person. Yes the court threw the question back to the states, but the states will be back asking the court to finally decide that question in the end.

You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 27, 2022, 09:10:51 AM
Isn't the government, we the people, and at some point the courts are going to decide if a fetus is a person or not and has rights protected under the 14th amendment just as a pregnant woman has. Even in the Roe decision back in '73 the court said the states do have a compelling interest to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester and struggled over the question of personhood but instead referred to the viability of the fetus avoiding the legal can of worms that would come of declaring the fetus a person. Yes the court threw the question back to the states, but the states will be back asking the court to finally decide that question in the end.

You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.

I think this is a good analysis and its also what makes the decision to toss Roe so insane to me.  Stuck in an absolutely no-win situation, Blackmun crafted an imperfect compromise based on viability that the vast majority of Americans could plug their nose and live with.  To toss it without a coherent framework to replace it in the year of our Lord 2022 citing an antiquated deference to states' rights is jurisprudential malpractice.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 09:11:06 AM
Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.

I could not agree with you more and I am sure the 6 Justices you so vehemently disagree with would encourage you to do just that.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 27, 2022, 09:15:25 AM
A big win for Joe Kennedy and football coaches everywhere. A lot of winning going on lately.  8-)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 09:17:17 AM
You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.

Can you use the "most Americans" argument for imposing some restrictions on abortion, while supporting a ruling to toss Roe v Wade that "most Americans" believe is wrong?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 09:28:33 AM
I could not agree with you more and I am sure the 6 Justices you so vehemently disagree with would encourage you to do just that.

It’s why atheists should be the only Supreme Court justices.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 27, 2022, 09:29:37 AM
Nah, Nads wood make a terrible justass, aina?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2022, 09:33:17 AM
Nah, Nads wood make a terrible justass, aina?

I'm overqualified!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 09:33:50 AM
I think this is a good analysis and its also what makes the decision to toss Wade so insane to me.  Stuck in an absolutely no-win situation, Blackmun crafted an imperfect compromise based on viability that the vast majority of Americans could plug their nose and live with.  To toss it without a coherent framework to replace it in the year of our lord 2022 citing an antiquated deference to states' rights is jurisprudential malpractice.

The difference is that Roe said the states could have a compelling interest to restrict abortion, but never addressed whether the states must restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester. If the question of personhood does come before the court I could see mid/late term abortions being banned in all states or at least challenged where  a dad or grandparent who have standing is willing to care for the child. Are you arguing that the unborn should not have any rights even though Roe ruled there is a compelling state interest?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 09:33:54 AM
It’s why atheists should be the only Supreme Court justices.


Pfft. Belief in the Establishment Clause is for suckers.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 09:50:31 AM

Pfft. Belief in the Establishment Clause is for suckers.

You can make the constitution say anything
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2022, 09:56:50 AM
You can make the constitution bible say anything
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 10:23:54 AM


Bible is the most dangerous book ever written
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 27, 2022, 10:25:15 AM
Have you read it?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 27, 2022, 10:33:10 AM
The difference is that Roe said the states could have a compelling interest to restrict abortion, but never addressed whether the states must restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester. If the question of personhood does come before the court I could see mid/late term abortions being banned in all states or at least challenged where  a dad or grandparent who have standing is willing to care for the child. Are you arguing that the unborn should not have any rights even though Roe ruled there is a compelling state interest?

Not at all. I am arguing that under Roe, we had least narrowed the questions to post-viability/third trimester.  Now its the wild west for... reasons?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 27, 2022, 10:43:10 AM
I did not expect a lot of reasoned analysis in here, but somehow we've managed to run into a bar that was so low as to be lying on the floor.

Couple things:

1. None of the Justices lied during their confirmation hearings. They told very precise and technical truths (Aes Sedai truths, for those of you familiar with the Wheel of Time series). They relied on everyone else to either lie to themselves about what "settled law" meant, to be ignorant about what it meant, or to (here's looking at you Senators) rely on that language to afford them plausible deniability in moving forward with the confirmations. Nobody who has traveled in confirmation circles at any point post Bork actually thinks they lied under oath. If they are saying as much, they're resistance grifters and are performing outrage for you.
2. Moral/ethical analysis of abortion aside, there are very serious legal implications of this decision. If you read a decision that includes some variant of "for these reasons we confine this ruling to this case only" and believe it will have not have precedential effect beyond this case only, you're a sucker.
3. You're a sucker if you read Thomas' concurrence as the ravings of a madman.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 10:51:01 AM
Have you read it?

Yes, raised Catholic.  Broke free later in life
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 27, 2022, 11:01:22 AM
Yes, raised Catholic.  Broke free later in life
Good for you. Keep your religious opinions to yourself, hypocrite.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 11:02:45 AM
Good for you. Keep your religious opinions to yourself, hypocrite.

I don’t think I will.  Religion kills
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 27, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
Its splitting hairs, but I wonder if there isn't a better term that could be used for "treatment" for ectopic pregnancy or other procedures where a pregnancy is terminated but strictly due to medical reasons/maternal safety.

Far too many pro-life people hear "abortion" and immediately think of a back alley wire hanger job except done in a doctor's office.  I'm not saying it would swing people to pro-choice, but it could at least maybe help with some of the use case scenarios instead of blanket abortion bans.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 27, 2022, 11:19:02 AM
Its splitting hairs, but I wonder if there isn't a better term that could be used for "treatment" for ectopic pregnancy or other procedures where a pregnancy is terminated but strictly due to medical reasons/maternal safety.

Far too many pro-life people hear "abortion" and immediately think of a back alley wire hanger job except done in a doctor's office.  I'm not saying it would swing people to pro-choice, but it could at least maybe help with some of the use case scenarios instead of blanket abortion bans.

Sounds good but I’m very skeptical
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2022, 11:19:49 AM
Its splitting hairs, but I wonder if there isn't a better term that could be used for "treatment" for ectopic pregnancy or other procedures where a pregnancy is terminated but strictly due to medical reasons/maternal safety.

Far too many pro-life people hear "abortion" and immediately think of a back alley wire hanger job except done in a doctor's office.  I'm not saying it would swing people to pro-choice, but it could at least maybe help with some of the use case scenarios instead of blanket abortion bans.
It wouldn't help.  Zealots don't/won't care about nuance.  It's all or nothing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 27, 2022, 11:28:38 AM
My family would not exist without abortion. My wife would be dead and my children would never have been born. Abortion saves lives and saves families.

I can make exactly the same argument in reverse. Both of my children were orphans who were carried to term by single women. If abortion were widespread in the communities in which they were born, neither would be alive today and  my wife and I would not have the family we have.

We have no knowledge of who these women are but we honor their commitment to the life they carried within them every day. We are extremely grateful for the sacrifice they made and the gift they gave us.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 27, 2022, 11:28:41 AM
Have you read it?

I have. It’s full of contradictions - and those contradictions have been used for centuries to justify using it as a hammer.

Regardless, I focus mostly on the gospels and Jesus’ central message of love and forgiveness. His favorite disciple John tended to get that message as is reflected in his letters.

The Pauline letters are filled with Old Testament type thinking with some decent nuggets here and there. Most likely chosen for inclusion due to their legalistic nature preferred by Church leaders at the time…or at any time really.

The Old Testament is good for some historical context, some good wisdom (like Ecclesiastes) and interesting stories.

Not sure what any of this has to do with abortion.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 27, 2022, 11:31:27 AM
Bible is the most dangerous book ever written
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 11:32:59 AM
I can make exactly the same argument in reverse. Both of my children were orphans who were carried to term by single women. If abortion were widespread in the communities in which they were born, neither would be alive today and  my wife and I would not have the family we have.

We have no knowledge of who these women are but we honor their commitment to the life they carried within them every day. We are extremely grateful for the sacrifice they made and the gift they gave us.

If you don't know these women, how do you know abortion was or wasn't widespread in their communities? Or that they would have chosen abortion if it were?
Bottom line ... those women made a choice. A choice other women are not being deprived.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 11:46:03 AM
Do people who think they are women when they are men or vice versa and people who think men can have babies think anyone takes them seriously?

Life is scary when the world changes and leaves you behind.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 11:47:13 AM
How about all the police officers murdered during the burn loot and murder riots in 2020?

Not even a top 20 most dangerous job in the US.

More died from Covid than from being 'murdered'.  Clown.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 27, 2022, 11:49:01 AM
A big win for Joe Kennedy and football coaches everywhere. A lot of winning going on lately.  8-)

I understand the freedom to quietly pray but if you read the actual case, players testified as saying they felt compelled or risked playing time as the coach would go to the middle of the field and hold up a helmet. If you've played a team sport, you would know that's pretty much universally a sign to gather.

Anyway, the Ninth Circuit's denial of rehearing actually states that after refusing alternative accommodations to pray from the school district, he advertised in the area newspaper and local/national TV stations that he intended to defy they request.

He then proceeded to pray out loud in the middle of the field immediately after he sued the school district with making sure that local politicians and members of the media were recording the event.

Feels really icky and not in good faith (unintentional).

But I guess to quote Matthew 6:5

 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Or was this only all about winning as it usually is?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 11:50:06 AM
I'm thinkin' y'all are wrong. The divide is too great and its a bridge too far. Hopefully I'm wrong, hey?

You were old in 1968 and probably said the same thing.

Going to be painful to be wrong again, aina?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 11:52:07 AM
That is your opinion and I respect that, but many would disagree with your opinion. The Court sent it back to the states to decide. I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide. Even if they granted personhood status it would not ban abortion it would only grant the fetus equal protection and many of these difficult decision would be decided on a case by case ruling.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745

And millions of idiots in the US believe that climate change isn't real.

That doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Science doesn't care about your 'opinions'.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 11:52:56 AM
I understand the freedom to quietly pray but if you read the actual case, players testified as saying they felt compelled or risked playing time as the coach would go to the middle of the field and hold up a helmet. If you've played a team sport, you would know that's pretty much universally a sign to gather.

Anyway, the Ninth Circuit's denial of rehearing actually states that after refusing alternative accommodations to pray from the school district, he advertised in the area newspaper and local/national TV stations that he intended to defy they request.

He then proceeded to pray out loud in the middle of the field immediately after he sued the school district with making sure that local politicians and members of the media were recording the event.

Feels really icky and not in good faith (unintentional).

But I guess to quote Matthew 6:5

 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Or was this only all about winning as it usually is?

No doubt the same people celebrating this ruling would be thrilled if a Muslim coach led players in prayer at the 50-yard line.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 11:58:43 AM
Its splitting hairs, but I wonder if there isn't a better term that could be used for "treatment" for ectopic pregnancy or other procedures where a pregnancy is terminated but strictly due to medical reasons/maternal safety.

Far too many pro-life people hear "abortion" and immediately think of a back alley wire hanger job except done in a doctor's office.  I'm not saying it would swing people to pro-choice, but it could at least maybe help with some of the use case scenarios instead of blanket abortion bans.

I guess we don't actually care about 'life' then, do we?  Ectopic pregnancies and aborting them to save the mother terminates a viable pregnancy.  It's been clearly established that the life of a clump of cells trumps that of a living breathing woman... who statistically speaking, already has children.  Let's leave her existing children motherless because abortion is illegal.  That'll truly fix the country.

I know you're trying to be reasonable here, and I am too, but that isn't where the US is anymore.  Extremist Christian Fundamentalists (the minority) are in control, and are imposing their dogmatic views on the majority.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 12:02:07 PM
I can make exactly the same argument in reverse. Both of my children were orphans who were carried to term by single women. If abortion were widespread in the communities in which they were born, neither would be alive today and  my wife and I would not have the family we have.

We have no knowledge of who these women are but we honor their commitment to the life they carried within them every day. We are extremely grateful for the sacrifice they made and the gift they gave us.

I'm sorry, but abortion is perfectly legal in Ukraine. Which is where one of your children is from, if I am not mistaken.

Abortion in Ukraine is legal on request during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, including medical, social and personal grounds, and for any reason with the approval of a commission of physicians.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

So, your argument is pretty moot here.  If they'd have been aborted your life would have been different and you'd have different kids.  And you'd never know the difference.

What point are you attempting to make here?

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 12:04:24 PM
Have you read it?

It's on the level of Aesop's fables.  Except Aesop's fables didn't contradict itself nearly as much, nor kill as many innocent people.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 27, 2022, 01:03:01 PM
And millions of idiots in the US believe that climate change isn't real.

That doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Science doesn't care about your 'opinions'.

So I you just posted previously that you believe women can be men and men can be woman and that men can have babies.  Now you’re saying science doesn’t care about someone’s opinions?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2022, 01:06:31 PM
No doubt the same people celebrating this ruling would be thrilled if a Muslim coach led players in prayer at the 50-yard line.

  or if a team was putting BLM patches on the uniforms and a few decided they didn't want them on theirs?? 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: cheebs09 on June 27, 2022, 01:08:29 PM
So I you just posted previously that you believe women can be men and men can be woman and that men can have babies.  Now you’re saying science doesn’t care about someone’s opinions?

Didn’t Merit post about that……..
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 01:31:15 PM
  or if a team was putting BLM patches on the uniforms and a few decided they didn't want them on theirs??

Google "non-sequitur."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 01:32:47 PM
So I you just posted previously that you believe women can be men and men can be woman and that men can have babies.  Now you’re saying science doesn’t care about someone’s opinions?

I'll just leave this for you here.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-science-health-gender-identity-biology-2a67da6515aa48e68e56cd97817b097a
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 27, 2022, 01:35:37 PM
Didn’t Merit post about that……..
Indeed. Men can’t have babies. Period. Wild that has to be said.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 27, 2022, 01:49:41 PM
I remember when chicks with dicks was a kink that hards searched for on Alta Vista.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 01:53:31 PM
So I you just posted previously that you believe women can be men and men can be woman and that men can have babies.  Now you’re saying science doesn’t care about someone’s opinions?

No, I'm saying that science says that gender isn't the same as sex.  Gender is a social construct, just like race.

But you know, here I go talking to a stupid person again.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 01:55:35 PM
I remember when chicks with dicks was a kink that hards searched for on Alta Vista.

I'm not conservative enough to be obsessed with trans people, sorry.

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 27, 2022, 03:02:27 PM
I can make exactly the same argument in reverse.

1) Your argument falls flat because they made a choice.

2) Are you really trying to use your family to argue my wife should be dead and my children should not exist?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 27, 2022, 03:09:24 PM
1) Your argument falls flat because they made a choice.

2) Are you really trying to use your family to argue my wife should be dead and my children should not exist?
First and foremost, I am happy your wife and family are good. Second, just from reading, none of the restrictive abortion laws would ban ectopic pregnancies.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
I understand the freedom to quietly pray but if you read the actual case, players testified as saying they felt compelled or risked playing time as the coach would go to the middle of the field and hold up a helmet. If you've played a team sport, you would know that's pretty much universally a sign to gather.

Anyway, the Ninth Circuit's denial of rehearing actually states that after refusing alternative accommodations to pray from the school district, he advertised in the area newspaper and local/national TV stations that he intended to defy they request.

He then proceeded to pray out loud in the middle of the field immediately after he sued the school district with making sure that local politicians and members of the media were recording the event.

Feels really icky and not in good faith (unintentional).

But I guess to quote Matthew 6:5

 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Or was this only all about winning as it usually is?

Superb explanation of what went on here.

The coach is an attention whore who obviously doesn't give a shyte about kids -- or he wouldn't have put them on the spot in public, all but forcing them to join the prayer circle or be labeled heathens (or worse).

I'm not the least bit surprised by the ruling, though. SCOTUS has been taken over by Christian zealots, and they're already erasing decades of progress.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: noblewarrior on June 27, 2022, 03:40:19 PM
First and foremost, I am happy your wife and family are good. Second, just from reading, none of the restrictive abortion laws would ban ectopic pregnancies.

Nor do they disallow medical assistance for complications from miscarriages.  Also, very happy your family is well. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 27, 2022, 04:04:45 PM
First and foremost, I am happy your wife and family are good. Second, just from reading, none of the restrictive abortion laws would ban ectopic pregnancies.

Not an ectopic pregnancy. We miscarried at 12 weeks which required a D&C, considered an abortive procedure.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 27, 2022, 04:07:14 PM
These are the stone age people we are dealing with.

Republican candidate Yesli Vega:

"The left will say, 'Well, what about in cases of rape or incest?' I'm a law enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I've worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant."

How does she know how many rape cases end in pregnancy simply because she's a cop? What a painfully stupid thing to say.

She was then asked, "I've actually heard that it's harder for a woman to get pregnant if she's been raped. Have you heard that?"

"Well, maybe because there's so much going on in the body," Vega said. "I don't know. I haven't, you know, seen any studies. But if I'm processing what you're saying, it wouldn't surprise me. Because it's not something that's happening organically. You're forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly — it's not like, you know — and so I can see why there is truth to that. It's unfortunate."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 04:07:32 PM
This is what Justice Neil Gorsuch described as "quiet and personal" prayer.

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6yQ4uGZHLIdwMgXpJoze76di5OE=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23377100/temp.png)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 27, 2022, 04:12:42 PM
I had a kid push me up against my locker and threaten to beat the crap out of me because after reading up on the war on Iraq, i was at the time not particularly thrilled with saying the pledge of allegiance. I then said it from there on out because the alternative was to catch a beating despite it being “optional”. You can say that kids have the choice not to participate in these prayer sessions but you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s not going to be enforced in the background through direct or indirect means. This just opens it up for plausible deniability if incidents like these are brought up.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 04:24:30 PM
I had a kid push me up against my locker and threaten to beat the crap out of me because after reading up on the war on Iraq, i was at the time not particularly thrilled with saying the pledge of allegiance. I then said it from there on out because the alternative was to catch a beating despite it being “optional”. You can say that kids have the choice not to participate in these prayer sessions but you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s not going to be enforced in the background through direct or indirect means. This just opens it up for plausible deniability if incidents like these are brought up.

All the kids have always known, that the emperor wears no clothes.

But they bow down to him anyway, cause it's better than being alone.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 04:43:15 PM
This is stupid. Abortion saved my wife's life. Her second miscarriage required a DNC, which is considered an abortion process to remove tissue from a miscarried fetus. Not a baby, which does not exist until birth and absolutely cannot survive outside the womb until 20 weeks, a fetus.

Without that abortive process, my wife would be dead and neither my daughter nor son would be alive. Our abortion didn't kill a miscarried fetus, it saved a life and allowed the creation of two more.

...exactly, it does not kill the fetus.

https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/d-and-c-dilation-and-curettage
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2022, 05:19:11 PM
I had a kid push me up against my locker and threaten to beat the crap out of me because after reading up on the war on Iraq, i was at the time not particularly thrilled with saying the pledge of allegiance. I then said it from there on out because the alternative was to catch a beating despite it being “optional”. You can say that kids have the choice not to participate in these prayer sessions but you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s not going to be enforced in the background through direct or indirect means. This just opens it up for plausible deniability if incidents like these are brought up.

Sorry you went through that.

There is tremendous pressure on people to go along. Adults having to deal with it is one thing, a teenager having to deal with it is unconscionable.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 27, 2022, 05:41:37 PM
...exactly, it does not kill the fetus.

https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/d-and-c-dilation-and-curettage

Degrees from Marquette in the 60s must have been dished out like candy corn on Halloween.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 27, 2022, 06:01:58 PM
Degrees from Marquette in the 60s must have been dished out like candy corn on Halloween.

So they were thrown away cause they are a disgusting, gross excuse for a "candy"?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 🏀 on June 27, 2022, 06:07:42 PM
So they were thrown away cause they are a disgusting, gross excuse for a "candy"?

+1

I think candy corn was popular in the 60s though.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2022, 06:22:35 PM
So they were thrown away cause they are a disgusting, gross excuse for a "candy"?
Truer words have never been spoken (or typed I guess)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 27, 2022, 06:27:12 PM
So they were thrown away cause they are a disgusting, gross excuse for a "candy"?
There is no place here for candy corn haters, Sir!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 27, 2022, 06:31:49 PM
These are the stone age people we are dealing with.

Republican candidate Yesli Vega:

"The left will say, 'Well, what about in cases of rape or incest?' I'm a law enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I've worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant."

How does she know how many rape cases end in pregnancy simply because she's a cop? What a painfully stupid thing to say.

She was then asked, "I've actually heard that it's harder for a woman to get pregnant if she's been raped. Have you heard that?"

"Well, maybe because there's so much going on in the body," Vega said. "I don't know. I haven't, you know, seen any studies. But if I'm processing what you're saying, it wouldn't surprise me. Because it's not something that's happening organically. You're forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly — it's not like, you know — and so I can see why there is truth to that. It's unfortunate."

It harkens back to Senate Candidate Todd Akin's “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" comment.

Of course in 2012, that was enough for the powers that be in the Republican party to turn against him. Now, it's more a statement of qualifications for what the party has become.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 27, 2022, 06:37:44 PM
...exactly, it does not kill the fetus.

https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/d-and-c-dilation-and-curettage

I know what the procedure is. And it's still an illegal procedure after Roe was overturned. Because this wasn't about life, it was about controlling women.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 27, 2022, 06:39:12 PM
So they were thrown away cause they are a disgusting, gross excuse for a "candy"?

Slander!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 09:10:39 PM
I know what the procedure is. And it's still an illegal procedure after Roe was overturned. Because this wasn't about life, it was about controlling women.

It was never an illegal procedure for treating miscarriages even before Roe. My aunt had one in the 1950s at the county hospital. I remember because the family was pretty upset at the loss of the baby. The instruments used in the procedure have been around since the mid 19th century. I doubt anyone will being going to jail or lose the medical license for this procedure in treating miscarriages.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2022, 09:13:54 PM
Degrees from Marquette in the 60s must have been dished out like candy corn on Halloween.

At least my MU degree was worth a lot more then, than it is today.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 27, 2022, 09:18:08 PM
It was never an illegal procedure for treating miscarriages even before Roe. My aunt had one in the 1950s at the county hospital. I remember because the family was pretty upset at the loss of the baby. The instruments used in the procedure have been around since the mid 19th century. I doubt anyone will being going to jail or lose the medical license for this procedure in treating miscarriages.

the thing most don't understand about Roe is that it wasn't about a woman's right, it was about the right of a doctor to perform the procedure.

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

Perhaps if the court had decided an abortion was equal protection it may not have been overturned. Of course, the Democrats had 29 years of the Presidency to codify it into law, but that would have hurt fundraising. Instead, they relied on a ruling on a faulty foundation and got burned....but the fundraising is through the roof.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 27, 2022, 09:35:29 PM
It was never an illegal procedure for treating miscarriages even before Roe. My aunt had one in the 1950s at the county hospital. I remember because the family was pretty upset at the loss of the baby. The instruments used in the procedure have been around since the mid 19th century. I doubt anyone will being going to jail or lose the medical license for this procedure in treating miscarriages.

Also, the Catholic church is neutral on a miscarriage that requires a d&c.    The child is already dead, his/her spirit is with God and now it's just a necessary medical procedure for the mother and her health. 

Abortion originally was simply a medical term.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecatholicworkingmother/2018/06/an-abortion-is-not-the-same-thing-as-a-miscarriage/ (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecatholicworkingmother/2018/06/an-abortion-is-not-the-same-thing-as-a-miscarriage/)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 27, 2022, 10:24:19 PM
Also, the Catholic church is neutral on a miscarriage that requires a d&c.    The child is already dead, his/her spirit is with God and now it's just a necessary medical procedure for the mother and her health. 

Abortion originally was simply a medical term.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecatholicworkingmother/2018/06/an-abortion-is-not-the-same-thing-as-a-miscarriage/ (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecatholicworkingmother/2018/06/an-abortion-is-not-the-same-thing-as-a-miscarriage/)

Is the Catholic Church neutral on 11 year old alter boys?

If they are your moral authority, I think that explains it all.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 27, 2022, 10:31:08 PM
Is the Catholic Church neutral on 11 year old alter boys?

If they are your moral authority, I think that explains it all.

Hysterical!

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 28, 2022, 01:50:09 AM
No, I'm saying that science says that gender isn't the same as sex.  Gender is a social construct, just like race.

But you know, here I go talking to a stupid person again.

I admit it can all be confusing but National Geographic dedicated an issue 5 years ago to explain and it was very informative.  Things made more sense after reading.


GENDER REVOLUTION
Read the historic January 2017 Special Issue of National Geographic magazine on the shifting landscape of gender and download our discussion guide for teachers and parents.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/january-2017
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 28, 2022, 05:06:12 AM
Iz dis all good wit da birthing person, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 28, 2022, 05:25:55 AM
Is the Catholic Church neutral on 11 year old alter boys?

If they are your moral authority, I think that explains it all.

you need to leave your own personal experiences out of the discussion
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 28, 2022, 05:35:15 AM
you need to leave your own personal experiences out of the discussion

Do you really think it’s funny to imply that he’s a victim of child rape?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2022, 06:41:36 AM
you need to leave your own personal experiences out of the discussion

The Catholic Church is more dangerous than CRT, aina?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 06:49:55 AM
The Catholic Church is more dangerous than CRT, aina?
bigot
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: brewcity77 on June 28, 2022, 07:15:29 AM
The Catholic Church is more dangerous than CRT, aina?

Unquestionably. Not even debatable.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 07:34:55 AM
bigot

Is he wrong?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
bigot

For a milennium, the Catholic Church has launched wars, committed unspeakable atrocities and topped it off by allowing pedophilia to run rampant amongst its clergy.  I guess I’m a bigot if I find the Catholic Church reprehensible
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 07:49:24 AM
Is he wrong?
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 07:51:09 AM
For a milennium, the Catholic Church has launched wars, committed unspeakable atrocities and topped it off by allowing pedophilia to run rampant amongst its clergy.  I guess I’m a bigot if I find the Catholic Church reprehensible
Well, when you say the Bible is the most dangerous book ever written. Yes, you are a bigot towards Christians.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2022, 07:51:54 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.

Religious folks should do the same
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2022, 07:57:56 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.

I can't (and don't need to) speak for Rico, but this whole discussion wouldn't be necessary if some people who believe in God and the Bible weren't using those things to justify government climbing into a woman's womb (not to mention justifying other laws that take personal freedoms away from American citizens).

People throughout the world have used God and the Bible to justify unspeakable atrocities ever since man invented God and wrote the Bible thousands of years ago.

Glad you agree that these Christian zealots (and Jewish zealots and Muslim zealots) need to mind their own effen business.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 28, 2022, 08:02:31 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.


As a Christian, I find your statement to be way more problematic than his.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 08:03:32 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics.

Does he? I haven't read anything prejudicial against Catholics. I've just read criticism of the Catholic Church as an organization.
What am I missing?
Or are you missing the ability to distinguish between the two?
And if I, as a Catholic, criticize the church, am I being a bigot against myself?

Quote
Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.

I don't know why either, though I suspect it has something to do with many religious folks using their political influence to legislate their beliefs on to non-believers.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 08:09:25 AM
Religious folks should do the same
We agree on that
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 08:13:26 AM
Does he? I haven't read anything prejudicial against Catholics. I've just read criticism of the Catholic Church as an organization.
What am I missing?
Or are you missing the ability to distinguish between the two?
And if I, as a Catholic, criticize the church, am I being a bigot against myself?

I don't know why either, though I suspect it has something to do with many religious folks using their political influence to legislate their beliefs on to non-believers.
His previous posts as well (talking about the Bible). Believe me, the Catholic church is far from infallible, but when individuals mock a religion (not just Rico, one poster compared the Bible to Aesop's fables), others have mocked Mormonism, that is bigotry.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2022, 08:15:34 AM
I can't (and don't need to) speak for Rico, but this whole discussion wouldn't be necessary if some people who believe in God and the Bible weren't using those things to justify government climbing into a woman's womb (not to mention justifying other laws that take personal freedoms away from American citizens).

People throughout the world have used God and the Bible to justify unspeakable atrocities ever since man invented God and wrote the Bible thousands of years ago.

Glad you agree that these Christian zealots (and Jewish zealots and Muslim zealots) need to mind their own effen business.

The founding principles of this nation were not rooted in Christianity despite the proclamations of the dingbat caucus of the Republican Party.  Our founding fathers knew the dangers of a state intertwined with any religious body based on centuries of history.

This history still reverberates to modern day.  A nation born with the principle of seperation of church and state has instead become one where the two are intertwined.  Anyone that dismissed the danger of this simply ignore history.

The idea that we are a more enlightened society because we live in it is preposterous.  To think rule by religious beliefs can’t or won’t be negative ignores every ideal our nation was founded on.  We are devolving as a society as we look backwards and embrace superstition.  If we haven’t learned we are an ignorant society they last few years, the future is bleak
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 08:16:25 AM

As a Christian, I find your statement to be way more problematic than his.
What, (my opinion) that people should keep their religious beliefs to the confines of the proper venues (home, church,charitable organizations), is more problematic than his statements that it is OK for others to mock another persons religious beliefs? Calling him a bigot is from his body of work
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 28, 2022, 08:43:55 AM
What, (my opinion) that people should keep their religious beliefs to the confines of the proper venues (home, church,charitable organizations), is more problematic than his statements that it is OK for others to mock another persons religious beliefs? Calling him a bigot is from his body of work

I think telling non Christians to “mind their own business” when they question your beliefs is problematic.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 08:49:39 AM
I think telling non Christians to “mind their own business” when they question your beliefs is problematic.
Why? Religion and spiritualty are truly personal topics, and telling someone else how/what they should believe is what is problematic. As long as that individual is not personally affecting your right to believe what you want, leave them alone. If you want to worship trees, believe a space alien came down to save humanity, etc why should I care, and why should I tell you I believe your story is crap?Want to tell a politican his religious beliefs should not affect policy? I agree 100000%. Want to tell a guy on a message board his religious beliefs are wrong/stupid/silly? You become a bigot.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 28, 2022, 08:56:42 AM
I found this interesting .. Michigan has a simple way of amending their state Constitution.   Collect 425k signatures to get it on a ballot, then pass it.

A pro-choice group has 30k volunteers to collect those sigs by July 11th .. a very doable per volunteer amount.   

Michigan democrats have roughly swept all state-wide elections, from Gov to MI Supreme Court since 2018.  Throw in some pro-choice GOP voters and this amendment passes in November.

Somehow, they'll have to not let the people decide this!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-michigan-ballot-initiative/7722914001/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2022, 08:59:50 AM
Religion and spiritualty are truly personal topics

Then don't all but force teenagers to pray in public at midfield; don't keep pushing for prayer in schools; don't put God on our currency, license plates and other government-controlled items; don't make people swear on a bible in court; don't offer a public prayer before sporting events that aren't held in a church-supported location; don't very publicly use religion to justify invading a woman's body; etc.

I have absolutely no problem with people practicing their chosen religion. Why should I -- it is their right, as guaranteed by our Constitution, and I'm glad they have that right. But as soon as you not only bring that religion into the public sphere but also try to force others to adhere to laws, rules or customs regarding your religious beliefs, then yes, you should be called out or even mocked.

BTW, my use of "you" in the above was not referring to you specifically, lawdog. I don't know anything about your beliefs or the way you display them. It was the collective "you" referring to religious zealots who have made it their mission in life to get into everybody else's business.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 09:06:49 AM
Want to tell a politican his religious beliefs should not affect policy? I agree 100000%. Want to tell a guy on a message board his religious beliefs are wrong/stupid/silly? You become a bigot.

What if there's no separation between the two, which is often/mostly the case?
If you privately believe that gay marriage is a sin, that's fine.
If, on the other hand, you believe gay marriage is a sin and you vote for and/or financially support politicians who will legislate or otherwise act based on that belief, am I allowed to call you out on that? Or am I a bigot?


I guess what I'm saying is that when you choose to make your religious beliefs the foundation of your public life, then you open up your religious beliefs to public scrutiny. It's no longer a "personal topic."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2022, 09:22:01 AM
At least men will get richer ...

The all-male teams of investors behind Plan B are poised to make big bucks. According to the websites of the two private equity firms, Kelso and Juggernaut, only men make up the teams overseeing the maker of the top-selling emergency contraception in the United States. And their paydays could be big. One dose of brand-name Plan B typically sells for around $46. And it’s probably quite profitable: It had a more than 85 percent profit margin when it was sold as a prescription drug by Barr, said David Woodburn, a former analyst who covered the company.

(Above from the NYT's daily "DealBook" feature.)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 28, 2022, 09:24:20 AM
I found this interesting .. Michigan has a simple way of amending their state Constitution.   Collect 425k signatures to get it on a ballot, then pass it.

A pro-choice group has 30k volunteers to collect those sigs by July 11th .. a very doable per volunteer amount.   

Michigan democrats have roughly swept all state-wide elections, from Gov to MI Supreme Court since 2018.  Throw in some pro-choice GOP voters and this amendment passes in November.

Somehow, they'll have to not let the people decide this!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-michigan-ballot-initiative/7722914001/
This is how one of the voting controversies came to be.  In 2018, by a vote of the people, it was enacted that you could vote absentee without needing a reason in Michigan.   Because you felt like it.   During the pandemic, the SoS mailed out absentee ballots to every registered voter in the state.    The R's passed legislation saying that the mail in ballots could not be counted in advance, the counting would start in election day.

All of the urban areas had 10's of thousands of mail in ballots, Detroit well over 100k.    It isn't physically possible to count those all in a day.   Ergo, it was inevitable that there would be a delay in getting the final tally.     No conspiracy.  Simple math and physics.
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_3,_Voting_Policies_in_State_Constitution_Initiative_(2018)

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2022, 09:42:21 AM
This is how one of the voting controversies came to be.  In 2018, by a vote of the people, it was enacted that you could vote absentee without needing a reason in Michigan.   Because you felt like it.   During the pandemic, the SoS mailed out absentee ballots to every registered voter in the state.    The R's passed legislation saying that the mail in ballots could not be counted in advance, the counting would start in election day.

All of the urban areas had 10's of thousands of mail in ballots, Detroit well over 100k.    It isn't physically possible to count those all in a day.   Ergo, it was inevitable that there would be a delay in getting the final tally.     No conspiracy.  Simple math and physics.
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_3,_Voting_Policies_in_State_Constitution_Initiative_(2018)

Stop lying. Everybody knows that Michigan voting machines were tampered with by Jewish space lasers fired by Hugo Chavez.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 09:52:54 AM
Stop lying. Everybody knows that Michigan voting machines were tampered with by Jewish space lasers fired by Hugo Chavez.
To tie two threads together, if you paid attention to Ozark, they had voting machines which were tampered with.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 28, 2022, 09:59:51 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.

You're confused.  He said the Catholic church, not all Catholics.

I don't need to try to disprove the bible.  And if you want people to 'mind their own business' maybe stop forcing your religious beliefs on them.

Hypocrite.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 28, 2022, 10:00:37 AM
What, (my opinion) that people should keep their religious beliefs to the confines of the proper venues (home, church,charitable organizations), is more problematic than his statements that it is OK for others to mock another persons religious beliefs? Calling him a bigot is from his body of work

The essence of bigotry is judgement. So everyone has at least some. Assuming moral superiority based on one’s opinions re complex issues (abortion, gun control, etc.,) is bigotry. The more self righteous, the bigger the bigot.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 28, 2022, 10:05:00 AM
The essence of bigotry is judgement. So everyone has at least some. Assuming moral superiority based on one’s opinions re complex issues (abortion, gun control, etc.,) is bigotry. The more self righteous, the bigger the bigot.

Having a different opinion or a strongly held belief makes a person a bigot.

Let's get you to bed, grandpa.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 10:15:23 AM
You're confused.  He said the Catholic church, not all Catholics.

I don't need to try to disprove the bible.  And if you want people to 'mind their own business' maybe stop forcing your religious beliefs on them.

Hypocrite.
It's Rico's body of work, not that one specific post.  BTW, where have I tried to force my religious belief on anyone?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 28, 2022, 10:18:23 AM
Having a different opinion or a strongly held belief makes a person a bigot.

Let's get you to bed, grandpa.

It’s not the strong opinion that makes you a bigot. It’s the feeling of superiority that it engenders in some people.

Guess what, kid? You’re the poster boy.


Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 28, 2022, 10:18:41 AM
Yeah, I think discriminating against a person's identity makes you a bigot, not discriminating against their beliefs.  For example, people aren't anti-Semitic because they speak derisively of the Torah, they are anti-Semitic because they subscribe to discriminatory stereotypes and blanket discrimination against Jewish people as a group.   

Isn't calling someone a bigot for discriminating against ideas cancel culture?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 28, 2022, 10:19:31 AM
He's still a bigot. He clearly has a prejudice against Catholics. Still don't understand why some people who don't believe in God and the Bible (see the poster who compared it to Aesop's fables) feel the need to try to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. Mind your own business.

I think you are confusing 2 very different things, Lawdog. One is catholic teachings - which I have no problem with. The other is the catholic church, which in undeniably corrupt.

I grew up in a pretty strict protestant church. I still accept most of their teachings. I also have no desire to ever attend a church again. The "christian" leadership drove me out. They sold their souls to the republican party in the 80s. Hatred and evil are their standard fare now.

Those in power - be they catholic or christian - simply want to retain their hold on power and money. The easiest way to do that is to deny the rights of women both in public and in the church. Been that way since the beginnings for all churches.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 28, 2022, 10:20:56 AM
Why? Religion and spiritualty are truly personal topics, and telling someone else how/what they should believe is what is problematic. As long as that individual is not personally affecting your right to believe what you want, leave them alone. If you want to worship trees, believe a space alien came down to save humanity, etc why should I care, and why should I tell you I believe your story is crap?Want to tell a politican his religious beliefs should not affect policy? I agree 100000%. Want to tell a guy on a message board his religious beliefs are wrong/stupid/silly? You become a bigot.


Because a healthy set up beliefs should always be questioned.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Skatastrophy on June 28, 2022, 10:26:51 AM
It's Rico's body of work, not that one specific post.  BTW, where have I tried to force my religious belief on anyone?

You haven't that I recall, but that's the religious extremist platform. Small government... unless we get to force our religious views on the nation. It's pretty wild, and those extremists are alienating the majority of Americans.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 10:29:51 AM
It’s not the strong opinion that makes you a bigot. It’s the feeling of superiority that it engenders in some people.

Guess what, kid? You’re the poster boy.

I assume moral superiority to racists, xenophobes, homophobes and sexists. I judge the sh*t of these people.
Am I a bigot?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 28, 2022, 10:35:38 AM
It’s not the strong opinion that makes you a bigot. It’s the feeling of superiority that it engenders in some people.
I guess I'm a bigot against flatearthers and astrologists.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 10:36:30 AM

Because a healthy set up beliefs should always be questioned.
What does that even mean?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 28, 2022, 10:48:24 AM
What does that even mean?

It means that if you should always be questioning even your own beliefs.  It's healthy.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 28, 2022, 10:56:00 AM
It’s not the strong opinion that makes you a bigot. It’s the feeling of superiority that it engenders in some people.

Guess what, kid? You’re the poster boy.

I know your brain is a tad addled at your age, but you can't just make up new definitions to old words on your own.  Society determines meaning.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 28, 2022, 11:03:16 AM
It means that if you should always be questioning even your own beliefs.  It's healthy.
Oh, I agree about questioning my own beliefs. I do it everyday. That called being an adult. Questioning others' religious beliefs, on the other hand, if it doesn't affect my ability to practice my beliefs, is frankly none of my business.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2022, 11:07:50 AM
Oh, I agree about questioning my own beliefs. I do it everyday. That called being an adult. Questioning others' religious beliefs, on the other hand, if it doesn't affect my ability to practice my beliefs, is frankly none of my business.

Then keep religion out of government.  Until then, I’ll say whatever I damn well please about the influence of religion and how ridiculous religion is
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 28, 2022, 11:44:09 AM
I guess I'm a bigot against flatearthers and astrologists.

Actually the only people I hate are bigots.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 28, 2022, 02:29:07 PM
I assume moral superiority to racists, xenophobes, homophobes and sexists. I judge the sh*t of these people.
Am I a bigot?

And you are able to do that because when it comes to racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism, you, and you alone possess the wisdom to have all of the right answers to wear that moral superiority.

Boy, I wish I could be like you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 28, 2022, 02:43:07 PM
Start with the assumption that racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia are bad.   Then work on yourself.   Then you can be like Pakuni.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 02:44:32 PM
And you are able to do that because when it comes to racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism, you, and you alone possess the wisdom to have all of the right answers to wear that moral superiority.

Boy, I wish I could be like you.

No. I firmly believe a large majority of my fellow Americans possess the wisdom to have the right answers on racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism.
I very much suspect you're not one of them, though.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2022, 02:46:37 PM
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post.

The Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been widely interpreted to mean the separation of church and state — although the phrase is not explicitly used.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a political scientist at Harvard University, told The Washington Post that Boebert’s interpretation of the Constitution was “false, misleading and dangerous.” Calais-Haase said she was “extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains.”
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 28, 2022, 02:49:35 PM
No. I firmly believe a large majority of my fellow Americans possess the wisdom to have the right answers on racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism.
I very much suspect you're not one of them, though.

As I said, I only wish I could be as good as you
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 02:56:11 PM
As I said, I only wish I could be as good as you

I don't blame you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 28, 2022, 03:34:39 PM
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post.

The Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been widely interpreted to mean the separation of church and state — although the phrase is not explicitly used.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a political scientist at Harvard University, told The Washington Post that Boebert’s interpretation of the Constitution was “false, misleading and dangerous.” Calais-Haase said she was “extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains.”

Your a brain surgeon too with a monkey wrench.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 28, 2022, 04:32:29 PM
You say you wish to not have racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism? You’re better than me I guess.

Lol
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 28, 2022, 05:08:17 PM
Protecting the Constitution? The five extremists are pretty much wiping their collective asses with it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html


"On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court crushed yet another key component of the Voting Rights Act, halting a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its egregious racial gerrymander. The court’s intervention in Merrill v. Milligan was so radically unjustified that Chief Justice John Roberts—an architect of the judicial attack on voting rights—dissented, alongside the three liberals. The court’s order indicates that the five ultraconservative justices are preparing to dismantle the VRA’s guarantee against gerrymanders that dilute the voting strength of Black Americans. Indeed, by interceding so aggressively in Merrill, these far-right justices have effectively nullified this guarantee for the current redistricting cycle.

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has bulldozed several key provisions of the VRA. But until now, it had not yet repealed the law’s protections against the dilution of votes cast by racial minorities. This shield, contained in Section 2 and clarified by 1986’s Thornburg v. Gingles, requires a three-judge district court to determine whether a redistricting plan carves up minority communities to prevent them from electing the candidate of their choice. Although the Gingles test can be difficult to apply, the relevant factors here are straightforward: Due to racially polarized voting in the state, Black Alabamians cannot elect their preferred representatives unless they constitute a majority of their district".
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 28, 2022, 06:54:57 PM
Protecting the Constitution? The five extremists are pretty much wiping their collective asses with it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html


"On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court crushed yet another key component of the Voting Rights Act, halting a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its egregious racial gerrymander. The court’s intervention in Merrill v. Milligan was so radically unjustified that Chief Justice John Roberts—an architect of the judicial attack on voting rights—dissented, alongside the three liberals. The court’s order indicates that the five ultraconservative justices are preparing to dismantle the VRA’s guarantee against gerrymanders that dilute the voting strength of Black Americans. Indeed, by interceding so aggressively in Merrill, these far-right justices have effectively nullified this guarantee for the current redistricting cycle.

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has bulldozed several key provisions of the VRA. But until now, it had not yet repealed the law’s protections against the dilution of votes cast by racial minorities. This shield, contained in Section 2 and clarified by 1986’s Thornburg v. Gingles, requires a three-judge district court to determine whether a redistricting plan carves up minority communities to prevent them from electing the candidate of their choice. Although the Gingles test can be difficult to apply, the relevant factors here are straightforward: Due to racially polarized voting in the state, Black Alabamians cannot elect their preferred representatives unless they constitute a majority of their district".

They are not Justices. Just more right wing lawmakers.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 28, 2022, 07:47:03 PM
The march toward Christian Nationalist Fascism continues.   
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 28, 2022, 08:50:16 PM
They are not Justices. Just more right wing lawmakers.

In all honesty, this is how a civil war could come about. Decisions by decision this Supreme Court, that was constructed in part by legislatures violating their sworn duties to pack the court, continue to erode any aspect of rule of law in this nation. SCOTUS is now quite obviously a political, and religious entity.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 28, 2022, 09:57:31 PM
You say you wish to not have racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism? You’re better than me I guess.

Lol

My life has improved immensely since I became a disciple of pakuni.  He is an amazing individual.   
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 28, 2022, 10:43:59 PM
My life has improved immensely since I became a disciple of pakuni.  He is an amazing individual.

QFT.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CTWarrior on June 29, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
Nobody does. Nor has anyone ever.
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Spaniel with a Short Tail on June 29, 2022, 08:31:29 AM
I found this interesting .. Michigan has a simple way of amending their state Constitution.   Collect 425k signatures to get it on a ballot, then pass it.

A pro-choice group has 30k volunteers to collect those sigs by July 11th .. a very doable per volunteer amount.   

Michigan democrats have roughly swept all state-wide elections, from Gov to MI Supreme Court since 2018.  Throw in some pro-choice GOP voters and this amendment passes in November.

Somehow, they'll have to not let the people decide this!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-michigan-ballot-initiative/7722914001/

Having participated in these signature gatherings before, the math does not work out that easy. Bad signatures, different levels of commitment from circulators, round tabling, expired notaries, misnumbered pages are just a partial list of things that go wrong with these initiatives. The rule of thumb is you need to submit twice as many as the minimum required signatures to feel comfortable that you have enough valid signatures. But if successful, it's a tremendous accomplishment.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 08:46:37 AM
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW.
Very reasonable
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 29, 2022, 08:58:04 AM
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW.

Well said. The zealots on both sides of the issue now have the loudest voices. Like you I find the idea of abortion reprehensible, but we do live in a pluralistic society and over time cooler heads will come to a compromise most of us can live with. At some point the state must recognize as you say after a reasonable range the rights of the unborn as a person must be granted equal protection under the 14th amendment. That does not mean the rights of the mother will be taken away, just that both the unborn and the mother have equal standing in the eyes of the law.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 29, 2022, 09:15:49 AM
Well said. The zealots on both sides of the issue now have the loudest voices. Like you I find the idea of abortion reprehensible, but we do live in a pluralistic society and over time cooler heads will come to a compromise most of us can live with. At some point the state must recognize as you say after a reasonable range the rights of the unborn as a person must be granted equal protection under the 14th amendment. That does not mean the rights of the mother will be taken away, just that both the unborn and the mother have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

I do not think these two statements are reconcilable.

Setting aside the sense that I have from both this post and your general posting history that your perception of what "most of us can live with" is unlikely to be something those who do not agree with you are likely to be willing to "live with," I am extremely skeptical that "cooler heads will come to [any] compromise" on this issue. Nothing in the history of the past fifty years suggests to me that there is a compromise solution where abortion is accessible that the "prolife" community would accept. There has been a singular defining unity of purpose that has animated the organized "right" on this issue that suggests to me that when some state legislator rattles their saber about total abortion bans with no exclusions or a modern day fugitive slave act that reaches out to punish those who travel or aid travel to states where abortion is accessible that we ought to believe that is absolutely a goal and a possibility.

Also, I really don't think the "Grant embryos equal protection" crowd has really thought through the unintended consequences of doing so.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 09:17:49 AM
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW. 


I am certainly not calling you out on this, but I think your post is exactly why this is such a difficult issue.

If abortion is "reprehensible," why should there be any exceptions for rape or incest? Why are you willing to make exceptions for women with financial issues? How are you going to "prove" had these issues and isn't someone who just doesn't want a baby?

This is why I agree with the original decision. Just leave it up to the mother during the first trimester. After that, the only exception is if the mother's life is at risk - same legal theory as self-defense.

And I think that is what most Americans believe on this issue.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 09:20:15 AM
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

I think you have a very reasonable take overall, but to suggest there's no argument here is plainly wrong. There's a ton of argument here, and it's one of the reason we (as a country) have such conflicting views over abortion.
Even historically speaking, there's no  tradition of considering a fetus a human life. After all, we don't we hold funerals for miscarriages, for example. Why? We don't impose child support from the date of conception. Why?
And, of course, many honestly believe that until a fetus is viable, it's not a human life.
I think reasonable people can disagree in good faith here, but to claim there's no dispute one way or the other is not true.

Quote
My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 29, 2022, 09:25:03 AM
I had always been pro-choice but not willing to fight for it.   I come down very close to CTWarrior on this issue.

The baby in the picture (my avatar, I guess?) is now 15.    We found out my wife was pregnant for him three weeks short of my 40th birthday, six weeks shy of my wife's 37th birthday.    My wife has many health issues.   She had already miscarried twice.  Our first trip to the OB-Gyn, I was discreetly pulled aside and told to prepare myself for the possibility of terminating the pregnancy to protect my wife.   It was a difficult pregnancy, a premature birth, and a couple of days in NICU.    Obviously, she never reached the point where the decision had to be made.   But we could see it off in the distance a couple of times.

I cannot in good conscience take away a right that I had to claim for myself.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CTWarrior on June 29, 2022, 09:25:13 AM
I think you have a very reasonable take overall, but to suggest there's no argument here is plainly wrong. There's a ton of argument here, and it's one of the reason we (as a country) have such conflicting views over abortion.
Even historically speaking, there's no  tradition of considering a fetus a human life. After all, we don't we hold funerals for miscarriages, for example. Why? We don't impose child support from the date of conception. Why?
And, of course, many honestly believe that until a fetus is viable, it's not a human life.
I think reasonable people can disagree in good faith here, but to claim there's no dispute one way or the other is not true.

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
I say there is no argument at all that abortion ends a human life because what argument is there?  Fetuses that are not aborted become people.  That is not to say that fetuses are people, but that they will become people that vast vast majority of the time.  So ending the life of a fetus ends the life of what would have been a person.  Don't see how there is an argument there.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CTWarrior on June 29, 2022, 09:27:52 AM
If abortion is "reprehensible," why should there be any exceptions for rape or incest? Why are you willing to make exceptions for women with financial issues? How are you going to "prove" had these issues and isn't someone who just doesn't want a baby?

This is why I agree with the original decision. Just leave it up to the mother during the first trimester. After that, the only exception is if the mother's life is at risk - same legal theory as self-defense.

And I think that is what most Americans believe on this issue.
You make a good point above.  I don't have a good answer for you other than in my gut and in my heart that is what I think is right.  I agree with everything else you say.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 29, 2022, 09:33:19 AM
It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.


You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Skatastrophy on June 29, 2022, 09:38:34 AM

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.

Masturbation should be illegal, because all of those socks under ZFB's bed could have become people.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 29, 2022, 09:39:13 AM
Masturbation should be illegal, because all of those socks under ZFB's bed could have become people.

Jesus watches you masterbate.  He’s sort of creepy that way
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CTWarrior on June 29, 2022, 09:41:26 AM

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.
Well, I didn't mean to.  An aborted fetus is going to be a human being unless something interrupts its natural progress.  Prior to conception, that is not the case (at least the barriers are much more significant since most sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy).  At any rate, since the result of my thought process was to compromise and allow first trimester abortions, then I think it is safe to assume contraception comes well before that.  I suppose you can nitpick my logic, and I'm OK with that.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 09:43:46 AM
I say there is no argument at all that abortion ends a human life because what argument is there?  Fetuses that are not aborted become people.  That is not to say that fetuses are people, but that they will become people that vast vast majority of the time.  So ending the life of a fetus ends the life of what would have been a person.  Don't see how there is an argument there.

You seem to be arguing that something IS what it will become. That's an interesting theory, but also one that we plainly reject in nearly any other context. Nobody believes a caterpillar is actually a butterfly, or a tadpole is really a frog, or that the scrambled eggs you had for breakfast was really a piece of chicken.
That theory presents all sorts of interesting questions, also, when it comes to age-related crime and restrictions. Is a child an adult since that child will become an adult? Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's also the logic at work here when you claim that something actually is what it one day will become.
And the fact that we can have this debate seems to be proof that there is indeed an argument to be had.

.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CTWarrior on June 29, 2022, 09:56:29 AM
You seem to be arguing that something IS what it will become. That's an interesting theory, but also one that we plainly reject in nearly any other context. Nobody believes a caterpillar is actually butterfly, or a tadpole is really a frog, or that the scrambled eggs you had for breakfast was really a piece of chicken.
That theory presents all sorts of interesting questions, also, when it comes to age-related crime and restrictions. Is a child an adult since that child will become an adult? Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's also the logic at work here.
And the fact that we can have this debate seems to be proof that there is indeed an argument to be had.

.
Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 10:00:15 AM
Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.

If a fetus is not a person, then the argument that life begins at conception is false right?  At what point does the state have a compelling interest to protect something that is not a person?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 10:11:39 AM
Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.

You've shifted arguments here. You started with "abortion terminates a human life" and have slid to "abortion prevents a human life."
Pretty significant difference, no?
I think we can all agree that a fetus is a POTENTIAL human life. The debate here when it goes from potential to actual. You continue to suggest that there's no argument about that. I disagree.




Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 29, 2022, 10:13:10 AM
Well, I didn't mean to.  An aborted fetus is going to be a human being unless something interrupts its natural progress.  Prior to inception, that is not the case (at least the barriers are much more significant since most sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy).  At any rate, since the result of my thought process was to compromise and allow first trimester abortions, then I think it is safe to assume contraception comes well before that.  I suppose you can nitpick my logic, and I'm OK with that.

The problem is the biblical basis that is used to support outlawing abortion is usually something like Psalms 139:13,

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

This is used to support the idea that life begins at conception.

But others point to Jeremiah 1:5,

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

That says that life begins before conception, and contraception, is wrong. So you can expect the religious right to target other long standing laws too.

Regarding abortion, I've always been personally against it. But 100% recognize that my personal stance should not take away the rights of others. So I'm against the decision to overturn Roe.

Now, your original stance was well written, the problem is that Roe already was the compromise you are looking for. It is now gone, and some states are outlawing all forms of abortion. We already had a reasonable common sense law supported by science and medicine, that balanced the rights of an unborn fetus (whatever those rights are), and the rights of women.

We now have a situation in some states, where religious zealots, and politicians are stopping women from getting medical care that their physicians think is necessary.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 29, 2022, 10:44:51 AM

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.
Sounds similar to the same paranoia as those not wanting assault weapons banned because next will be personal protection firearms.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: YaBlueIt on June 29, 2022, 10:46:02 AM
Going through circles ad nauseum about "when does life begin", "is a fetus a human being", "when in a pregnancy do we draw the line", etc. is pointless because those are questions that people will never fully agree on because these definitions rely on personal beliefs, philosophy, or religion. Getting caught up in that debate is a trap.

The question is who should get to make those decisions about abortion? A patient and her doctor, or the government?

Anything else is missing the point.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 10:48:51 AM
Sounds similar to the same paranoia as those not wanting assault weapons banned because next will be personal protection firearms.

Yeah, it's not like a Supreme Court justice has literally suggested that the right to contraception should be reconsidered.
Oh, wait ...
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: NCMUFan on June 29, 2022, 11:04:14 AM
Yeah, it's not like a Supreme Court justice has literally suggested that the right to contraception should be reconsidered.
Oh, wait ...
Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: tower912 on June 29, 2022, 11:10:40 AM
So, ignore the words of Justice Thomas?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Skatastrophy on June 29, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.

Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 29, 2022, 11:35:09 AM
Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.

I urge people to be skeptical about how limited the decision is and to read Thomas' concurrence as more possible than you might think.

One thing that is clear in the wake of this decision is that people on the left/the Democratic party as a operation simply did not entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe and Casey. They seem to have had fundraising emails drafted, but not a single operable tactic ready to go. But, more particularly, they had a long time to be proactive and do something more to advance their stated goals of ensuring abortion access than to merely presume the Roe/Casey wall would never fall. They elected not to do any of those things, and well, here we are.

I say all that because I think you would be engaging in the exact kind of passive behavior if you read Dodds and concluded that "well that Thomas is sure out on his own island, isn't he. Good thing nobody else would overturn Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence" then you're falling into the exact same trap.

Force me to handicap the likelihood of those three being overturned, and I'd say less than a coinflip. However, I'd put the likelihood of their drawing a challege to be 100%, and I'm not sure it's wise to simply wishcast that the SCOTUS as currently assembled couldn't possibly strike down something that is as tenuous as unenumerated rights reliant on substantive due process precedent.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 29, 2022, 11:42:27 AM
I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 11:44:34 AM
Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.

Weird that he left out Loving. Can't imagine why.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2022, 11:57:06 AM
   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 12:01:19 PM
   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways


Are you seriously this dense?  A woman's Constitutional right to chose to have an abortion.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 29, 2022, 12:15:28 PM
I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.





More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling. This country is so fooked up and knocking on the door of the 3rd world. Equally amazed that Mayor Light-in-the-Loafers advocates fookin' Clarence Thomas, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 29, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.

Interesting that he didn’t include ‘Loving’ in his rantings.

Sorry, Pakuni - just saw your post :-\
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 12:18:51 PM
More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling.


Who's doing that?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 29, 2022, 12:19:13 PM




More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling. This country is so fooked up and knocking on the door of the 3rd world. Equally amazed that Mayor Light-in-the-Loafers advocates fookin' Clarence Thomas, hey?

You are more worried that local people are trying to manage the free-for-all created by sending decision making on this to the local level? This is what chaos looks like when you create chaos. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 29, 2022, 12:24:25 PM
As stated previously, RBG ultimately and selfishly, fooked over all women, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 29, 2022, 12:30:40 PM
As stated previously, RBG ultimately and selfishly, fooked over all women, hey?

That's a terrible take.  Some person who didn't take people's rights away is at fault? 

If you are going to erode the system and take away a right that has been in place for more than a generation...the people that stacked the court and took the right away own it and the chaos.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 29, 2022, 12:42:19 PM
Here’s a solution to ponder, mandated vasectomy’s for everyone until they’re ready to have kids. Can always have the procedure reversed.

That’ll solve any unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions.

Oh wait, you guys don’t like someone telling you what to do to your own body now? Weird.

Side note, if it’s not about controlling women then how come men can go get a vasectomy almost instantly without any permission, but some healthcare providers require a spouses signature to get a tubal ligation?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 29, 2022, 12:43:13 PM
Not true. Terminal RBG should have, for the good of the country, resigned under BO. A liberal justice would have been confirmed and this problem would probably never occurred. Presidential elections do matta. But, as it is, to the victor belongs the spoils, hey?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 29, 2022, 12:48:40 PM
Not true. Terminal RBG should have, for the good of the country, resigned under BO. A liberal justice would have been confirmed and this problem would probably never occurred. Presidential elections do matta. But, as it is, to the victor belongs the spoils, hey?

And if Merrick Garland was on the bench this is also a non issue.

Your argument is weird because 90% of democrats agree with you. But the hypocrisy shows when every conservative is a okay with Coney Barrett getting pushed through to confirmation, but Garland couldn’t even get a hearing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 29, 2022, 12:49:33 PM
I urge people to be skeptical about how limited the decision is and to read Thomas' concurrence as more possible than you might think.

One thing that is clear in the wake of this decision is that people on the left/the Democratic party as a operation simply did not entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe and Casey. They seem to have had fundraising emails drafted, but not a single operable tactic ready to go. But, more particularly, they had a long time to be proactive and do something more to advance their stated goals of ensuring abortion access than to merely presume the Roe/Casey wall would never fall. They elected not to do any of those things, and well, here we are.

I say all that because I think you would be engaging in the exact kind of passive behavior if you read Dodds and concluded that "well that Thomas is sure out on his own island, isn't he. Good thing nobody else would overturn Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence" then you're falling into the exact same trap.

Force me to handicap the likelihood of those three being overturned, and I'd say less than a coinflip. However, I'd put the likelihood of their drawing a challege to be 100%, and I'm not sure it's wise to simply wishcast that the SCOTUS as currently assembled couldn't possibly strike down something that is as tenuous as unenumerated rights reliant on substantive due process precedent.

100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 29, 2022, 12:50:21 PM
Here’s a solution to ponder, mandated vasectomy’s for everyone until they’re ready to have kids. Can always have the procedure reversed.

That’ll solve any unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions.

Oh wait, you guys don’t like someone telling you what to do to your own body now? Weird.

Side note, if it’s not about controlling women then how come men can go get a vasectomy almost instantly without any permission, but some healthcare providers require a spouses signature to get a tubal ligation?

Mini-guillotines would solve the abortion issue 100%.

Oh, wait. The gov't has no right to tell men what to do with their bodies.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 29, 2022, 12:51:14 PM
100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

Hopefully, Thomas will die sooner than later
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 29, 2022, 12:51:49 PM
   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

You ever see those, "Let's Go Brandon" flags, shirts, stickers, etc?

Odd that you didn't mention those.

Dumbest person on the board strikes again.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 29, 2022, 12:52:40 PM
100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

Don't forget that there are a lot of catholics on the court when it comes to ruling about contraception.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 29, 2022, 12:53:28 PM
I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

See the second post in this thread.  :P
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 29, 2022, 01:03:43 PM
I do not think these two statements are reconcilable.

Setting aside the sense that I have from both this post and your general posting history that your perception of what "most of us can live with" is unlikely to be something those who do not agree with you are likely to be willing to "live with," I am extremely skeptical that "cooler heads will come to [any] compromise" on this issue. Nothing in the history of the past fifty years suggests to me that there is a compromise solution where abortion is accessible that the "prolife" community would accept. There has been a singular defining unity of purpose that has animated the organized "right" on this issue that suggests to me that when some state legislator rattles their saber about total abortion bans with no exclusions or a modern day fugitive slave act that reaches out to punish those who travel or aid travel to states where abortion is accessible that we ought to believe that is absolutely a goal and a possibility.

Also, I really don't think the "Grant embryos equal protection" crowd has really thought through the unintended consequences of doing so.

...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2022, 01:06:15 PM

Are you seriously this dense?  A woman's Constitutional right to chose to have an abortion.

  abortion is a "constitutional" right?  i guess to you guys it is, but a dog ain't a cat.  i suppose this follows along with you will just enforce the laws you agree with too, eyn'a?


   " Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as such under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a “living document,” as “progressives” like to call it."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 29, 2022, 01:06:54 PM
...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.

Nope.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2022, 01:08:15 PM
You ever see those, "Let's Go Brandon" flags, shirts, stickers, etc?

Odd that you didn't mention those.

Dumbest person on the board strikes again.

  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft? 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 29, 2022, 01:10:03 PM
  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

I give this 7 of 10

Air quotes and ellipses are classic work but the lack of depth with regards to your usual inanities is disappointing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 01:11:18 PM
and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

Not everybody can be gifted a dental practice by their daddy.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 29, 2022, 01:20:06 PM
  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

Lordy.

I guess no one can fault you for trying, but holy hell, you're embarrassing yourself again.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 01:49:53 PM
  abortion is a "constitutional" right?  i guess to you guys it is, but a dog ain't a cat.  i suppose this follows along with you will just enforce the laws you agree with too, eyn'a?

   " Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as such under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a “living document,” as “progressives” like to call it."


You have such a fundamental lack of understanding on this issue. Most Constitutional rights are implied through Supreme Court decisions. They aren't explicitly stated anywhere. So by that standard, a whole bunch of rights would need to be rescinded in your eyes. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about constitutional law?

And yes, a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was considered a Constitutional right for 50 years. You may not like that right, but it was a right nevertheless.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 02:26:03 PM
I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

I don't think people aren't concerned, they just aren't surprised. It was pretty clear once the Christian Jihadists had a big enough majority they intended to remake the country in their fundamentalist image. McConnell stole two seats to ensure this happened.

It has been clear they intended to do whatever they want, screw settled law, since the days when Scalia started all decisions with the political outcome he wanted and then went through contortions, often conflicting, to give his pre-made decisions a patina of "reasoning".
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 02:28:57 PM
     all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

I was going to say to one can be this unnatural carnal knowledgeing stupid, but it's coming from the Buffon guy who calls Jan 6 a "thingy" and a "disturbance". So yeah...
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 02:29:54 PM
100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.
The Texas AG has already said he will oblige
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 29, 2022, 02:32:42 PM
...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.

To the extent that anybody says they want this outcome, I guarantee they have not thought through the implications of such a ruling.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 29, 2022, 02:53:34 PM
To the extent that anybody says they want this outcome, I guarantee they have not thought through the implications of such a ruling.

Like democrats actually showing up to the polls for a midterm election for a change.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 29, 2022, 03:03:13 PM
Hopefully, Thomas will die sooner than later

Nice.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 29, 2022, 03:30:44 PM
To the extent that anybody says they want this outcome, I guarantee they have not thought through the implications of such a ruling.

Actually as Alito says there is a great deal of gray area that the courts will hash out.

https://time.com/6191886/fetal-personhood-laws-roe-abortion/
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 29, 2022, 03:41:53 PM

You have such a fundamental lack of understanding on this issue. Most Constitutional rights are implied through Supreme Court decisions. They aren't explicitly stated anywhere. So by that standard, a whole bunch of rights would need to be rescinded in your eyes. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about constitutional law?

And yes, a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was considered a Constitutional right for 50 years. You may not like that right, but it was a right nevertheless.

Well 5 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with Rocket so who exactly has a fundamental misunderstanding on this issue? Oh! They have the last word and all the screaming and shouting is not going to change their opinion which is the only opinion that counts.

I would encourage you go out and vote and elect people that agree with you as the Court has instructed.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 29, 2022, 03:48:37 PM
Actually as Alito says there is a great deal of gray area that the courts will hash out.

https://time.com/6191886/fetal-personhood-laws-roe-abortion/

"Just calling balls and strikes."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 03:51:33 PM
Well 5 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with Rocket so who exactly has a fundamental misunderstanding on this issue?

Rocket does. If you would bother following along with the topic you would see what I am talking about.  A right doesn't have to be explicitly stated for it to be considered a Constitutional right. For instance, interracial marriage is considered a Constitutional right even though it isn't stated specifically in the document. And for 50 years, a woman's right to choose was considered a Constitutional right through the same process.

That five justices now take a different viewpoint, and have decided to rescind that right, is not really relevant to the truth in the above paragraph.

Do you understand now? Or are you going to come back with something else silly?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 03:54:48 PM
Well 5 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with Rocket so who exactly has a fundamental misunderstanding on this issue? Oh! They have the last word and all the screaming and shouting is not going to change their opinion which is the only opinion that counts.

More than a dozen justices on the Supreme Court disagree with rocket.
And, as we now see with Dobbs, Supreme Court justices don't have the last word after all. These five justices' lack of respect for precedence opens the door for future courts swinging this issue back and forth in perpetuity.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 29, 2022, 04:00:24 PM
Well 5 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with Rocket so who exactly has a fundamental misunderstanding on this issue? Oh! They have the last word and all the screaming and shouting is not going to change their opinion which is the only opinion that counts.

I would encourage you go out and vote and elect people that agree with you as the Court has instructed.

I don't think you're appreciating what I'm saying here. I have not offered an opinion on whether the Court should answer the question of extending equal protection to the "unborn," whether they will be asked to rule on such a thing, or even whether such a thing is good or bad. I'm saying that people who are, for example, on message boards suggesting that such a thing should happen have not really gamed out what the consequences of such a ruling would really be.

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: CountryRoads on June 29, 2022, 04:11:50 PM
Not sure if it’s been posted on here but here’s a pretty freezing cold take from our radio announcer:

https://twitter.com/crackedsidewlks/status/1542240751228174337?s=21&t=duwar-6dly5yu33dZzWGgA

Fwiw, I think we should have gotten rid of Homer years ago because he’s always just been horrible. If I’m not available to be in front of a TV during a game, I’d rather refresh game scores online than listen to him (that actually has nothing to do with the tweet I linked).
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 29, 2022, 04:14:56 PM
Not sure if it’s been posted on here but here’s a pretty freezing cold take from our radio announcer:

https://twitter.com/crackedsidewlks/status/1542240751228174337?s=21&t=duwar-6dly5yu33dZzWGgA

Fwiw, I think we should have gotten rid of Homer years ago because he’s always just been horrible. If I’m not available to be in front of a TV during a game, I’d rather refresh game scores online than listen to him (that actually has nothing to do with the tweet I linked).

Everyone knows slavery was about states rights
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Skatastrophy on June 29, 2022, 04:15:40 PM
The alt-right supreme court strikes again. Today giving states' expanded powers to enforce laws on reservations for the first time in 200 years. The dissent (Gorsuch-R) states:

"If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that. And given that a nine- member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is no surprise that the Court’s cost- benefit analysis is radically incomplete. The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process.

Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
Not sure if it’s been posted on here but here’s a pretty freezing cold take from our radio announcer:

https://twitter.com/crackedsidewlks/status/1542240751228174337?s=21&t=duwar-6dly5yu33dZzWGgA

Fwiw, I think we should have gotten rid of Homer years ago because he’s always just been horrible. If I’m not available to be in front of a TV during a game, I’d rather refresh game scores online than listen to him (that actually has nothing to do with the tweet I linked).

He's since deleted it. But man that is just a terrible take.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 04:25:02 PM
The alt-right supreme court strikes again. Today giving states' expanded powers to enforce laws on reservations for the first time in 200 years. The dissent (Gorsuch-R) states:

"If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that. And given that a nine- member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is no surprise that the Court’s cost- benefit analysis is radically incomplete. The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process.

Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom."

Activist judges.

Every accusation from the right is a confession.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 29, 2022, 04:32:31 PM
I'm pretty dumb, can someone explain Homer's reply, the meme, and the outrage?

Not teal.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 29, 2022, 04:33:33 PM
Not sure if it’s been posted on here but here’s a pretty freezing cold take from our radio announcer:

https://twitter.com/crackedsidewlks/status/1542240751228174337?s=21&t=duwar-6dly5yu33dZzWGgA

Fwiw, I think we should have gotten rid of Homer years ago because he’s always just been horrible. If I’m not available to be in front of a TV during a game, I’d rather refresh game scores online than listen to him (that actually has nothing to do with the tweet I linked).

Homer is fine.  He's not Vin Scully but he's solid.  Radio PBP is not easy and its not like there are countless marquee radio PBP guys that are going to be fixed to a college team in a non-major market.  He was great with Thompson, good with Mac, and pretty good with Tony Smith.

I feel like people's dislike of his political views or his mediocre radio show bleed into their perception of him as a PBP guy.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 04:40:33 PM
I'm pretty dumb, can someone explain Homer's reply, the meme, and the outrage?

Not teal.

It seems someone made a meme comparing abortion to slavery, with the point of contention being people not seeing the fetus/slave as a person.
Homer contradicted said meme because, he claimed, slavery (unlike abortion, one can presume) is not "about murder."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 29, 2022, 04:50:36 PM
Homer is fine.  He's not Vin Scully but he's solid.  Radio PBP is not easy and its not like there are countless marquee radio PBP guys that are going to be fixed to a college team in a non-major market.  He was great with Thompson, good with Mac, and pretty good with Tony Smith.

I feel like people's dislike of his political views or his mediocre radio show bleed into their perception of him as a PBP guy.

Yeah I think he's good from tip to buzzer and awful at everything else. I'm told he's very good at charity events working crowds. His radio show is bad even measured against sports radio which is universally awful.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 29, 2022, 05:05:28 PM
It seems someone made a meme comparing abortion to slavery, with the point of contention being people not seeing the fetus/slave as a person.
Homer contradicted said meme because, he claimed, slavery (unlike abortion, one can presume) is not "about murder."

I dont think slavery was about murder...but only a myopic fundamentalist would think the abortion debate is either.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 29, 2022, 05:39:25 PM
Homer is fine.  He's not Vin Scully but he's solid.  Radio PBP is not easy and its not like there are countless marquee radio PBP guys that are going to be fixed to a college team in a non-major market.  He was great with Thompson, good with Mac, and pretty good with Tony Smith.

I feel like people's dislike of his political views or his mediocre radio show bleed into their perception of him as a PBP guy.

I haven’t listened to him doing PBP for years cause I have a TV.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Billy Hoyle on June 29, 2022, 07:07:53 PM
Like democrats actually showing up to the polls for a midterm election for a change.

the internet and social media are not real life. Abortion rights is down the list of priorities for voters heading into the midterms. As long as inflation continues, shelves in stores are empty (my local grocery stores have empty dairy cases right now), and gas prices remain high, abortion is not going to shift the election significantly. As James Carville said while running Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, "it's the economy, stupid."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 07:29:09 PM
the internet and social media are not real life. Abortion rights is down the list of priorities for voters heading into the midterms. As long as inflation continues, shelves in stores are empty (my local grocery stores have empty dairy cases right now), and gas prices remain high, abortion is not going to shift the election significantly. As James Carville said while running Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, "it's the economy, stupid."

This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.


So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 29, 2022, 08:41:25 PM
The Texas AG has already said he will oblige

The same Texas AG who has been facing multiple felonies for years, but is still in office.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 29, 2022, 08:53:41 PM
Activist judges.

Every accusation from the right is a confession.

There were discussions about a possible civil war in the future, or secession of states. I think each of these activist decisions makes it more likely. The reasoning:

1. It is clear that the current makeup of the court will continue to disregard the rule of law to establish right-wing, and/or christian ideals and force them on the rest of America. That has already led to SCOTUS being considered a political, not legal entity, that the average American distrusts.

2. With an activist SCOTUS, one of three things will occur. a) America votes in a democratic house and senate by a significant margin. b) We continue to largely have divided rule in congress/house. c) Republicans control all branches.

For 2a) They should and will either pass legislature undoing many of these decisions. If this occurs, I think conservative states will challenge the legislation, and the conservative SCOTUS will rule those new laws unconstitutional. Alternatively, they pack the court. Expand to 13 justices and undo many of these decisions. Conservative states threaten to secede.

For 2b) We further degrade the rule of law, and liberal states move to leave the union.

2c) See 2b. Republicans will codify into law a lot of these new restrictions that strip Americans of their rights and push it even farther towards the religious right. Liberal states decide their is no hope for change and leave the union.

A year ago I would have thought this type of outcome was highly unlikely. But with each decision that has been coming down lately I think it becomes more and more likely that secession occurs.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2022, 09:00:47 PM
This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.


So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412

  remember the source(abc along with most of the rest of them) censor the schiff out of anything detrimental to their team. if  the people who brought us the steaming pile of schiff we are living in right now would have reported just 1 or 2 very volatile(but true) stories, we would still have $2 gas

when a drunken driver, for example, runs into a pregnant woman and kills both the woman and her UNBORN BABY, why do they charge the person with 2 counts of murder if it's just a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy??
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 29, 2022, 09:26:38 PM
  remember the source(abc along with most of the rest of them) censor the schiff out of anything detrimental to their team. if  the people who brought us the steaming pile of schiff we are living in right now would have reported just 1 or 2 very volatile(but true) stories, we would still have $2 gas

when a drunken driver, for example, runs into a pregnant woman and kills both the woman and her UNBORN BABY, why do they charge the person with 2 counts of murder if it's just a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy??

If you think that who is president is affecting the price of gas right now, then you have zero understanding of economics, and gas prices.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 29, 2022, 09:28:34 PM
the internet and social media are not real life. Abortion rights is down the list of priorities for voters heading into the midterms. As long as inflation continues, shelves in stores are empty (my local grocery stores have empty dairy cases right now), and gas prices remain high, abortion is not going to shift the election significantly. As James Carville said while running Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, "it's the economy, stupid."

Might need to update your information, Junior.

Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
We now have 3 Congressional Generics since Roe ended:

NPR/Marist           48 Dem 41 R  +7
Morning Consult  45 Dem 42 R  +3
Yahoo/YouGov     45 Dem 38 R  +7
     and in this poll
"Pro-choice Dem" vs "Pro-life R"  is 47-32.

It's a new election.

And...
Poll: Confidence in Supreme Court collapses as just 33% agree with decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

"A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that more than six in 10 Americans (61%) now have little or no confidence in the Supreme Court after its decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade — a near-total reversal from the 70% of voters who expressed at least some confidence in the court right before conservative justices gained a 6-3 majority with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

This could have political consequences in the 2022 midterms. For one thing, more Democrats now name abortion (17%) over inflation (16%) as “the most important issue to you when thinking about this year’s election,” suggesting that the issue could motivate them to turn out at the polls. Among all voters, abortion (11%) now ranks third behind inflation (34%) and democracy (20%), with crime (4%), immigration (7%), health care (5%) and climate change (5%) trailing well behind.

Likewise, Americans now say the Democratic Party (40%) would do a better job handling abortion than the Republican Party (31%), up slightly from 38%-32% a month ago."

Turns out, a theocracy isn't all that popular.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 29, 2022, 09:57:52 PM
Might need to update your information, Junior.

Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
We now have 3 Congressional Generics since Roe ended:

NPR/Marist           48 Dem 41 R  +7
Morning Consult  45 Dem 42 R  +3
Yahoo/YouGov     45 Dem 38 R  +7
     and in this poll
"Pro-choice Dem" vs "Pro-life R"  is 47-32.

It's a new election.

And...
Poll: Confidence in Supreme Court collapses as just 33% agree with decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

"A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that more than six in 10 Americans (61%) now have little or no confidence in the Supreme Court after its decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade — a near-total reversal from the 70% of voters who expressed at least some confidence in the court right before conservative justices gained a 6-3 majority with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

This could have political consequences in the 2022 midterms. For one thing, more Democrats now name abortion (17%) over inflation (16%) as “the most important issue to you when thinking about this year’s election,” suggesting that the issue could motivate them to turn out at the polls. Among all voters, abortion (11%) now ranks third behind inflation (34%) and democracy (20%), with crime (4%), immigration (7%), health care (5%) and climate change (5%) trailing well behind.

Likewise, Americans now say the Democratic Party (40%) would do a better job handling abortion than the Republican Party (31%), up slightly from 38%-32% a month ago."

Turns out, a theocracy isn't all that popular.

Does YouGov sponsor multiple polls?

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1542244650282586121

And from that same YouGov poll abortion didn’t crack the top 5 on issues most important to Americans right now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1542167055373328384
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 29, 2022, 10:17:36 PM
  remember the source(abc along with most of the rest of them) censor the schiff out of anything detrimental to their team. if  the people who brought us the steaming pile of schiff we are living in right now would have reported just 1 or 2 very volatile(but true) stories, we would still have $2 gas

Huh?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 29, 2022, 10:53:06 PM
Rocket does. If you would bother following along with the topic you would see what I am talking about.  A right doesn't have to be explicitly stated for it to be considered a Constitutional right. For instance, interracial marriage is considered a Constitutional right even though it isn't stated specifically in the document. And for 50 years, a woman's right to choose was considered a Constitutional right through the same process.

That five justices now take a different viewpoint, and have decided to rescind that right, is not really relevant to the truth in the above paragraph.

Do you understand now? Or are you going to come back with something else silly?

Actually that is not true either. Marriage is not a right but a contract between two individuals. For most of our history marriage contracts in most states were between two individuals of the opposite sex and same race. Then in 1967 the courts permitted individuals of the opposite sex and different races to enter into marriage contracts and just recently individuals of the same sex. The courts over the years have just expanded which individuals can enter marriage contracts, but again marriage in and of itself is not a right but a contract.


In the Dobbs decision the very first sentence states unequivocally that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

I know you will disagree and I respect your point of view.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 29, 2022, 11:03:07 PM
This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.


So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412

Agree.  It's dire for Republicans.   Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 11:13:39 PM
Actually that is not true either. Marriage is not a right but a contract between two individuals. For most of our history marriage contracts in most states were between two individuals of the opposite sex and same race. Then in 1967 the courts permitted individuals of the opposite sex and different races to enter into marriage contracts and just recently individuals of the same sex. The courts over the years have just expanded which individuals can enter marriage contracts, but again marriage in and of itself is not a right but a contract.


In the Dobbs decision the very first sentence states unequivocally that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

I know you will disagree and I respect your point of view.

Actually, it is true. Respectfully, you've got it all very wrong.
The basis for both Loving (interracial marriage) and Obergfell (same-sex marriage) are the 14th Amendment's Due Process  and the Equal Protection clauses. In both instances, the Supreme Court ruled that a) marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and b) states would be violating that fundamental constitutional right by denying it to people on the basis of race and choice of partner.

It's worth noting here that like the word "abortion," the word "marriage" does not appear in the Constitution. Which kind of exposes the hypocrisy of Alito, who uses that fact the overturn Roe but claims he couldn't and wouldn't do the same for Obergfell. At least Thomas is honest about the implications of Dodds.
But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 29, 2022, 11:20:37 PM
This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.


So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412

Brother Pakuni:

I question what important means.

I go back to what the Late Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois once said in response to Marilyn Quayle and other hard core religious conservatives' efforts to change the GOP. Said the Gov:

The average Illinois woman doesn't wake up in the morning and worry about her access to an abortion. Nor does she worry about whether there is prayer in public schools. She worries about her job, or her spouse's job. She worries about opportunity. She worries about whether her streets are safe and whether her children have access to a strong education. She probably worries about savings for retirement.

That's about the same time Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy.... stupid."

There's a lot of people in this country that are angry right now. And while I agree that a few are truly angry over the Supreme Count, I'm pretty confident the Democrats are in for a a very, very rude awakening in November. What people are angry about is near double digit inflation. Grocery and gas prices that appear to be orbiting Mars. Interest rates that are double what they were just a few short months ago -- rates that are getting close to shutting down the housing market.

There's a lot of hype about the Court ruling but I'll promise you, abortion rights pale in comparison to pocketbook issues. Bank on it!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2022, 11:20:50 PM
Agree.  It's dire for Republicans.   Thanks for sharing.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/JogvCObN79ihnPIjgt/giphy.gif?cid=790b761146ffa52a60906877ecc14206c64ca0b18e57c424&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on June 30, 2022, 12:23:47 AM
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/JogvCObN79ihnPIjgt/giphy.gif?cid=790b761146ffa52a60906877ecc14206c64ca0b18e57c424&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

That hurts.  I said I agree with you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 30, 2022, 01:59:29 AM
If you think that who is president is affecting the price of gas right now, then you have zero understanding of economics, and gas prices.

Seriously, spot on.  I've been in Europe the last 2 weeks and they are complaining of inflation and petrol prices.   And both are way way higher than we are seeing in the USA. The worker shortage is the same situation all over Europe and Asia.. Germany has a bigger issue with flight cancellations and there is a luggage handler shortage.  Germans tell me they are screwed because they relied on Russian gas too long and had no plan B.  Many other countries had plan B put in place years ago so are not being as badly effective.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 30, 2022, 04:23:28 AM
Nm
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 30, 2022, 04:24:39 AM
If you think that who is president is affecting the price of gas right now, then you have zero understanding of economics, and gas prices.

He doesn’t understand the basics of constitutional law or virology either so I’m not surprised. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 05:26:11 AM
He doesn’t understand the basics of constitutional law or virology either so I’m not surprised.

Horse meds to that to people
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 30, 2022, 05:56:21 AM
  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 30, 2022, 06:15:06 AM
  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though.

You lack a basic understanding of economics.  No one here takes your opinions seriously.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 30, 2022, 06:28:45 AM
There were discussions about a possible civil war in the future, or secession of states. I think each of these activist decisions makes it more likely. The reasoning:

1. It is clear that the current makeup of the court will continue to disregard the rule of law to establish right-wing, and/or christian ideals and force them on the rest of America. That has already led to SCOTUS being considered a political, not legal entity, that the average American distrusts.

2. With an activist SCOTUS, one of three things will occur. a) America votes in a democratic house and senate by a significant margin. b) We continue to largely have divided rule in congress/house. c) Republicans control all branches.

For 2a) They should and will either pass legislature undoing many of these decisions. If this occurs, I think conservative states will challenge the legislation, and the conservative SCOTUS will rule those new laws unconstitutional. Alternatively, they pack the court. Expand to 13 justices and undo many of these decisions. Conservative states threaten to secede.

For 2b) We further degrade the rule of law, and liberal states move to leave the union.

2c) See 2b. Republicans will codify into law a lot of these new restrictions that strip Americans of their rights and push it even farther towards the religious right. Liberal states decide their is no hope for change and leave the union.

A year ago I would have thought this type of outcome was highly unlikely. But with each decision that has been coming down lately I think it becomes more and more likely that secession occurs.

There is no mechanism for secession in the constitution, and it won't happen.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 06:41:03 AM
  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though.

Hang this at the Marquette Dental School
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 30, 2022, 06:47:05 AM
no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 07:12:06 AM
1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?

…cuz presdeint “ice creem barin fereez” and joy behar butt u ale rally around ur mvp and do crt
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: The Sultan of Semantics on June 30, 2022, 07:45:26 AM
1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?


4.  The whole point of the abortion debate is that women get to choose.  If someone else "kills" the fetus, you are taking away that choice.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 30, 2022, 08:33:43 AM
…cuz presdeint “ice creem barin fereez” and joy behar butt u ale rally around ur mvp and do crt

At least highlight "oatmeal breath".  Amongst that mess, that didn't make sense as a burn as it was intended, but was actually a funny insult.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 30, 2022, 09:15:49 AM
Actually, it is true. Respectfully, you've got it all very wrong.
The basis for both Loving (interracial marriage) and Obergfell (same-sex marriage) are the 14th Amendment's Due Process  and the Equal Protection clauses. In both instances, the Supreme Court ruled that a) marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and b) states would be violating that fundamental constitutional right by denying it to people on the basis of race and choice of partner.

It's worth noting here that like the word "abortion," the word "marriage" does not appear in the Constitution. Which kind of exposes the hypocrisy of Alito, who uses that fact the overturn Roe but claims he couldn't and wouldn't do the same for Obergfell. At least Thomas is honest about the implications of Dodds.
But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing.

So what you are saying is that once a permission to do something is permitted it become a right and if that permission to do something is taken away then it only follows that that right was taken away.

Abortion will now be treated like guns; each state will have their own laws preventing us from exercising our constitutional rights to some degree.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 30, 2022, 09:16:26 AM
This has been the best pride month ever for the Constitution and the Country. Gonna be a great Independence Day!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 30, 2022, 09:17:45 AM
A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 30, 2022, 09:35:00 AM
But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

Wait wait wait.  Do you have the gall to infer that originalism might be a post hoc justification for interpreting questions of law in a way that is consistent a Justice's personal beliefs, rather than a foundational beacon of jurisprudential philosophy?  That's pure jiggery pokery.

A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

FWIW, the dismantling of the administrative state has been a primary goal of conservative jurists for awhile now.  It bears some similarities to the debate raging about Roe, primarily in terms of the court's willingness to destroy governmental infrastructure without a ready replacement.  Like, there are good arguments that the administrative state has expanded beyond its legislative mandate, but that has generally been out of organizational necessity rather than some sort of underhanded executive branch overreach. To accept cert on these cases and then render decisions that curtail administrative power in specific instances is just leading to a swiss cheese arrangement that sets the administrative state up to fail by making it look incompetent because the court has destroyed key cogs in the system.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: muwarrior69 on June 30, 2022, 09:35:37 AM
A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 09:41:36 AM
This has been the best pride month ever for the Constitution and the Country. Gonna be a great Independence Day!

Agree completely. Good 2 weeks for Constitutional jurisprudence.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 09:43:20 AM
You lack a basic understanding of economics.  No one here takes your opinions seriously.

I take his opinions seriously.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 30, 2022, 09:45:53 AM
...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.
This is exactly the point. Things need to be done by Congress.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 09:55:06 AM
Hopefully, someone will Pelican Brief a few of these justices
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 30, 2022, 09:56:28 AM
I take his opinions seriously.

This says a lot about your state of mind.  You're certainly the first to have his back on any of his deranged ramblings around here.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MUBurrow on June 30, 2022, 09:56:36 AM
This is exactly the point. Things need to be done by Congress.

I don't think people really understand what the ramifications of this is/will be. If you think public institutions don't work now, just wait until we eliminate all implied authority of the administrative state. 

Gotta love when folks blame the government for not being able to function like a private business, then by judicial decree prohibit the government from acting in a way that even vaguely reflects a private business.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 30, 2022, 09:56:58 AM
Wait wait wait.  Do you have the gall to infer that originalism might be a post hoc justification for interpreting questions of law in a way that is consistent a Justice's personal beliefs, rather than a foundational beacon of jurisprudential philosophy?  That's pure jiggery pokery.

FWIW, the dismantling of the administrative state has been a primary goal of conservative jurists for awhile now.  It bears some similarities to the debate raging about Roe, primarily in terms of the court's willingness to destroy governmental infrastructure without a ready replacement.  Like, there are good arguments that the administrative state has expanded beyond its legislative mandate, but that has generally been out of organizational necessity rather than some sort of underhanded executive branch overreach. To accept cert on these cases and then render decisions that curtail administrative power in specific instances is just leading to a swiss cheese arrangement that sets the administrative state up to fail by making it look incompetent because the court has destroyed key cogs in the system.

I like you.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: LAZER on June 30, 2022, 10:04:28 AM
...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.
With the exception of SCOTUS
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jficke13 on June 30, 2022, 10:08:33 AM
In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing.

So what you are saying is that once a permission to do something is permitted it become a right and if that permission to do something is taken away then it only follows that that right was taken away.

Abortion will now be treated like guns; each state will have their own laws preventing us from exercising our constitutional rights to some degree.

Yeah... no?

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” "

Alito, writing for the majority, explicitly stated that "no such right [to obtain an abortion] is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision."

Your assertion that "abortion will be treated like guns" is foundationally flawed. The Court has held the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms. Restrictions on that right must pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Restrictions on access to abortion have no such hurdle because, in the post-Dobbs landscape, there is no constitutional right to access an abortion.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 10:09:51 AM
Hopefully, someone will Pelican Brief a few of these justices

So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 10:13:46 AM
So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.

Just helping them get to heaven quicker should make them happy.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Merit Matters on June 30, 2022, 10:20:13 AM
Just helping them get to heaven quicker should make them happy.
Character revealed.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 10:34:00 AM
Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 30, 2022, 10:36:29 AM
Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

The same people who think Congress needs to decide every nuance of the Clean Air Act also believe the vice president gets to decide the winner of a presidential election.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2022, 10:43:44 AM
Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

#45, the nation's #1 traitor, screamed at his Secret Service to let the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other cultists with weapons into his rally so they could march to the Capitol and commit unspeakable atrocities.

roQQet and his pals would have been thrilled with that. Guns, conspiracy theories and cultists doing 45's bidding ... talk about a winning hat trick!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 10:54:30 AM
#45, the nation's #1 traitor, screamed at his Secret Service to let the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other cultists with weapons into his rally so they could march to the Capitol and commit unspeakable atrocities.

roQQet and his pals would have been thrilled with that. Guns, conspiracy theories and cultists doing 45's bidding ... talk about a winning hat trick!

Source?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 30, 2022, 10:55:31 AM
So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.

This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: JWags85 on June 30, 2022, 11:00:44 AM
This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.

Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 11:02:34 AM
Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.

Devil’s advocate says the path is being created by restricting voting rights and manipulating access to voting.  One side is very much in favor of such things
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 30, 2022, 11:09:25 AM
Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.

I didn't compare the two. I just said that there is obviously a point where violence is justified. I find myself wondering where that point is/should be. I mean we already saw that some in our country reached that point on Jan 6.

Also, personally, I find the idea of assassinating one individual to be a lot lower of a threshold than starting a war of rebellion.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: forgetful on June 30, 2022, 11:10:59 AM
...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.

This case should never have even been heard. Instead, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats decided to hear the case and make a major decision that impacts all Americans in a negative way.

SCOTUS right now is the epitome of unelected bureaucrats.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2022, 11:14:27 AM
This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.

Before the election, NPR did a series centered around a reporter who rode his bike around the entire country and, along the way, talked to people of all political persuasions. Guy logged thousands of miles on his bike.

Anyway, he did one interview with a far-far-far-right Trump supporter who was certain his man would be re-elected. The NPR guy asked something like, "What do you think will happen if Biden wins?" And the cultist answered, "There'd have to be a revolution." He spoke in a monotone voice and couldn't have been more calm as he said it, as if, "Yep, a revolution, of course." It was chilling to hear it.

And now we know that those like him were ready and willing to shed blood on 1/6/21. And after Wednesday's testimony, we know it would have been much, much worse if the Secret Service had acceded to the demented demands of #45 to shut down the weapon-screening equipment and let those with guns take part in his violent coup attempt.

Thousands -- maybe even hundreds of thousands -- on the extreme right agree with the guy who thinks a revolution is necessary.

Scary times for our country.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 30, 2022, 11:58:18 AM
You ain't seen nothing yet. The Court has annouced it is going to review a case that allows State Legislatures determine how elections are conducted, and such legislative decisions can't be reviewed by State courts.

Full on Christofascism.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 12:01:24 PM
You ain't seen nothing yet. The Court has annouced it is going to review a case that allows State Legislatures determine how elections are conducted, and such legislative decisions can't be reviewed by State courts.

Full on Christofascism.

Yup, this is straight up sick stuff
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Hards Alumni on June 30, 2022, 12:17:00 PM
Yup, and for that exact reason the Dems should start court packing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2022, 12:26:08 PM
You ain't seen nothing yet. The Court has annouced it is going to review a case that allows State Legislatures determine how elections are conducted, and such legislative decisions can't be reviewed by State courts.

Full on Christofascism.

The case SCOTUS is willing to hear involves racist gerrymandering in NC. Legislatures in southern states want to be able to do this with impunity. They also want to be able to install Trumpists to oversee elections so that next time it will be easier to pull of a coup and cancel millions of votes they don't like.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 30, 2022, 12:38:19 PM
A few of the above "Pelican Brief" posts were flagged, so here we are.

I have to say .. I am galactically befuddled as to how we haven't entered the political assassination phase.  The country has all the elements, guns, fear, hatred, a feeling of helplessness/hopelessness, extreme disinformation painting the other side as evil.   Not to mention the media/fame machine.

Maybe people are too busy watching Netflix?  I have no other explanation.  It sure isn't "we're better than that."
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 12:44:44 PM
A few of the above "Pelican Brief" posts were flagged, so here we are.

I have to say .. I am galactically befuddled as to how we haven't entered the political assassination phase.  The country has all the elements, guns, fear, hatred, a feeling of helplessness/hopelessness, extreme disinformation painting the other side as evil.   Not to mention the media/fame machine.

Maybe people are too busy watching Netflix?  I have no other explanation.  It sure isn't "we're better than that."

What?  😂
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 30, 2022, 12:45:47 PM
A few of the above "Pelican Brief" posts were flagged, so here we are.

I have to say .. I am galactically befuddled as to how we haven't entered the political assassination phase.  The country has all the elements, guns, fear, hatred, a feeling of helplessness/hopelessness, extreme disinformation painting the other side as evil.   Not to mention the media/fame machine.

Maybe people are too busy watching Netflix?  I have no other explanation.  It sure isn't "we're better than that."

I have had the same thoughts. The only reason I can think of is that even those that feel 'victimized' don't want to risk their current standing in life for the unknown.

I also appreciate you leaving this thread open - at least, so far. It has generally been cordial.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Jockey on June 30, 2022, 12:49:26 PM
Yup, and for that exact reason the Dems should start court packing.

The most radical SC in history. Today, they voted in favor of a company's right to pollute.

The right finally got the activist judges they hate so much.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 30, 2022, 12:59:58 PM
The case SCOTUS is willing to hear involves racist gerrymandering in NC. Legislatures in southern states want to be able to do this with impunity. They also want to be able to install Trumpists to oversee elections so that next time it will be easier to pull of a coup and cancel millions of votes they don't like.

It goes far further than overseeing elections, or gerrymandering for that matter. It goes to Eastman's theory that legislatures can write whatever rules they want, regardless of the state constitution, without oversight from the state judicial branch...and then, if the rules they wrote don't produce the outcome that they want, they can simply overrule the actual voting and do whatever they want.

We've already seen the Republicans float the idea of changing state voting to be county-based so that a county of 700 people counts equally with a country with 700,000 people in order to dilute the voting power of cities. And, once the Catholic Jihadists rule, even if that still doesn't get the outcome they want, the State legislature can decide to do whatever their Christofascist hearts' desire.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 30, 2022, 01:32:23 PM
The most radical SC in history. Today, they voted in favor of a company's right to pollute.

The right finally got the activist judges they hate so much.

I strongly disagree with you. In law, the ends do not justify the means when it comes to bad law. Not a single justice voted to pollute. Rather, for the first time in as long as I can remember, someone reined in the administrative branch of government!

One very frustrating problem is how an administrative agency of government can create the regulation and then act as judge, jury and executioner. That's not the way the system was set up, though I admit finding the line against which an agency oversteps sounds easier than it is.

If you as a citizen want tough climate action and eliminating coal fired power plants, go to Congress and get them to pass a law. And then get the President to sign it. What the court effectively said is that Congress is the legislative branch of government, not the administrative agencies.

Many of you forget that it's not the court's job to reflect popular opinion. It's the court's job to adjudicate, based on what the law says. Despite all the hysteria in here, the courts can't create rights out of thin air. And, yes, the administrative agencies can't go beyond what Congress has told them to do.

In other words, change the law, don't subvert it!

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 01:45:07 PM
It goes far further than overseeing elections, or gerrymandering for that matter. It goes to Eastman's theory that legislatures can write whatever rules they want, regardless of the state constitution, without oversight from the state judicial branch...and then, if the rules they wrote don't produce the outcome that they want, they can simply overrule the actual voting and do whatever they want.

We've already seen the Republicans float the idea of changing state voting to be county-based so that a county of 700 people counts equally with a country with 700,000 people in order to dilute the voting power of cities. And, once the Catholic Jihadists rule, even if that still doesn't get the outcome they want, the State legislature can decide to do whatever their Christofascist hearts' desire.

Source?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jesmu84 on June 30, 2022, 01:48:52 PM
I think there was a recent back and forth on here that involved discussion regarding conservatives rolling back EPA regulations.

Welp.

It's disgusting how segments of the population give no care toward future populations.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: dgies9156 on June 30, 2022, 01:51:39 PM
And, once the Catholic Jihadists rule, even if that still doesn't get the outcome they want, the State legislature can decide to do whatever their Christofascist hearts' desire.

Brother T:

Have you been to a Catholic Church lately?

Jihadists? Yeah, right. This is scapegoating, clear and simple.

I suspect you haven't been, so let me fill you in. Catholic attendance at Sunday Mass has fallen off dramatically. Churches that 10 years ago were jampacked today are less than half full. Interest in Catholic schools is falling and many Dioceses, like Chicago, are closing churches and schools en masse. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution is losing influence by the day, largely because of its own faults and stubbornness.

Those families that go to church, look and think like the rest of the country. Take birth control. A generation ago, Catholic Mass was populated by families with large trains full of children. Today, your average Catholic family look a lot like the rest of the country -- two or three children. I can pretty much promise that ain't happening through abstinence or natural family planning.

For Jihadists, we take an awfully strong view on the rights of our fellow men and women. Sure, our leadership has blind spots and they do dumb things from time to time. Gays, lesbians, pedophilia, occasional fraud and theft and women in general for starters. But as followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ -- and that, folks, is what it's about -- we reach out to those who are poor, suffering and otherwise in need. As a follower of Jesus, we do that with time, talent or treasure -- sometimes all three. We know that our God commands us to "love your neighbor as yourself," and as trying as that sometimes can be, we do our best. We often disagree with others on important issues to our nation or our world but if we're doing our job, we have a duty to listen and respect our adversaries. Sometimes you convince us to change our vision. Sometimes not.

Fascists'? Jihadists? What Jihadist or fascist organization comes even close to being the largest NGO provider of social services in the world?

Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 30, 2022, 01:52:48 PM


If you as a citizen want tough climate action and eliminating coal fired power plants, go to Congress and get them to pass a law. And then get the President to sign it. What the court effectively said is that Congress is the legislative branch of government, not the administrative agencies.


Coal is already dead.  Industry already self-killed it.  It's way cheaper to build a wind turbine or a solar farm. 

I read this last month and was surprised by it.  The two states with the highest electric rates are West Virginia and Florida because both states are the most dependent on coal powered electricity.  Florida, the Sunshine State, made it very hard to install solar power. 
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Pakuni on June 30, 2022, 01:58:27 PM
One very frustrating problem is how an administrative agency of government can create the regulation and then act as judge, jury and executioner. That's not the way the system was set up, though I admit finding the line against which an agency oversteps sounds easier than it is.

This is exactly how it was set up. In no way did the Founders wish for the Congress to micromanage every action of the executive branch.
Do you, for example, believe Congress not only declares war, but also should determine troop movements and strategy?
Do you think Congress not only writes federal criminal law, but also decides who gets a  plea deal?
Congress is a policymaker. The administrative agency (i.e. the executive branch) carries out the policies.
This is pretty basic stuff.


Quote
If you as a citizen want tough climate action and eliminating coal fired power plants, go to Congress and get them to pass a law. And then get the President to sign it.

That's exactly what happened here. Congress passed the Clean Air Act. A president signed it. The executive branch carried out policy based on that.
And along came six people who said "No, you can't do that."

Quote
Many of you forget that it's not the court's job to reflect popular opinion. It's the court's job to adjudicate, based on what the law says. Despite all the hysteria in here, the courts can't create rights out of thin air. And, yes, the administrative agencies can't go beyond what Congress has told them to do.
Do you believe Brown and Loving were wrongly decided? If not, explain how that fits in with your judicial philosophy stated above.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: lawdog77 on June 30, 2022, 02:00:29 PM
Coal is already dead.  Industry already self-killed it.  It's way cheaper to build a wind turbine or a solar farm. 

I read this last month and was surprised by it.  The two states with the highest electric rates are West Virginia and Florida because both states are the most dependent on coal powered electricity.  Florida, the Sunshine State, made it very hard to install solar power.
Where did you read that? Here's what I found for 2020 and 2021

https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/204.htm (https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/204.htm)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electricity-cost-by-state (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electricity-cost-by-state)

and June 2022
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/ (https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/)
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: jesmu84 on June 30, 2022, 02:04:24 PM
That's exactly what happened here. Congress passed the Clean Air Act. A president signed it. The executive branch carried out policy based on that.

Exactly

This decision was purely political. And will be devastating for the nation and future generations.

But at least corporations will have less regulations!
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 02:06:02 PM
I think there was a recent back and forth on here that involved discussion regarding conservatives rolling back EPA regulations.

Welp.

It's disgusting how segments of the population give no care toward future populations.

WTF are you talking about???

I want him to identify which Republicans are " floating the idea that towns of 700 people should have their votes count the same as towns of 700, 000 people.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 30, 2022, 02:06:37 PM
Source?
Perhaps you could look it up
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 30, 2022, 02:08:04 PM
Brother T:

Have you been to a Catholic Church lately?

Jihadists? Yeah, right. This is scapegoating, clear and simple.

I suspect you haven't been, so let me fill you in. Catholic attendance at Sunday Mass has fallen off dramatically. Churches that 10 years ago were jampacked today are less than half full. Interest in Catholic schools is falling and many Dioceses, like Chicago, are closing churches and schools en masse. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution is losing influence by the day, largely because of its own faults and stubbornness.

Those families that go to church, look and think like the rest of the country. Take birth control. A generation ago, Catholic Mass was populated by families with large trains full of children. Today, your average Catholic family look a lot like the rest of the country -- two or three children. I can pretty much promise that ain't happening through abstinence or natural family planning.

For Jihadists, we take an awfully strong view on the rights of our fellow men and women. Sure, our leadership has blind spots and they do dumb things from time to time. Gays, lesbians, pedophilia, occasional fraud and theft and women in general for starters. But as followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ -- and that, folks, is what it's about -- we reach out to those who are poor, suffering and otherwise in need. As a follower of Jesus, we do that with time, talent or treasure -- sometimes all three. We know that our God commands us to "love your neighbor as yourself," and as trying as that sometimes can be, we do our best. We often disagree with others on important issues to our nation or our world but if we're doing our job, we have a duty to listen and respect our adversaries. Sometimes you convince us to change our vision. Sometimes not.

Fascists'? Jihadists? What Jihadist or fascist organization comes even close to being the largest NGO provider of social services in the world?
What does any of this have to do with the radicals that sit on the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 30, 2022, 02:11:25 PM
Where did you read that? Here's what I found for 2020 and 2021

https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/204.htm (https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/204.htm)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electricity-cost-by-state (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electricity-cost-by-state)

and June 2022
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/ (https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/)

I found the article but did misread.  West Virginia prices are 35/40% higher than they should be because of some Joe Manchin as Governor passed thing.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 02:13:37 PM
Brother T:

Have you been to a Catholic Church lately?

Jihadists? Yeah, right. This is scapegoating, clear and simple.

I suspect you haven't been, so let me fill you in. Catholic attendance at Sunday Mass has fallen off dramatically. Churches that 10 years ago were jampacked today are less than half full. Interest in Catholic schools is falling and many Dioceses, like Chicago, are closing churches and schools en masse. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution is losing influence by the day, largely because of its own faults and stubbornness.

Those families that go to church, look and think like the rest of the country. Take birth control. A generation ago, Catholic Mass was populated by families with large trains full of children. Today, your average Catholic family look a lot like the rest of the country -- two or three children. I can pretty much promise that ain't happening through abstinence or natural family planning.

For Jihadists, we take an awfully strong view on the rights of our fellow men and women. Sure, our leadership has blind spots and they do dumb things from time to time. Gays, lesbians, pedophilia, occasional fraud and theft and women in general for starters. But as followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ -- and that, folks, is what it's about -- we reach out to those who are poor, suffering and otherwise in need. As a follower of Jesus, we do that with time, talent or treasure -- sometimes all three. We know that our God commands us to "love your neighbor as yourself," and as trying as that sometimes can be, we do our best. We often disagree with others on important issues to our nation or our world but if we're doing our job, we have a duty to listen and respect our adversaries. Sometimes you convince us to change our vision. Sometimes not.

Fascists'? Jihadists? What Jihadist or fascist organization comes even close to being the largest NGO provider of social services in the world?

+1000
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 02:20:01 PM
Perhaps you could look it up

Perhaps you could just tell me. I trust you. And you said Republicans ( plural) so I'm looking for more than one. And as soon as you identify the source, I can then be as outraged at them as you appear to be.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Goose on June 30, 2022, 02:20:42 PM
dgies

Very good post. Only thing I can argue, it is quite common at our Parish to see families with 8-10 children. From time to time I enjoy going to weekday 6:30am mass and there are a lot of big families there everyday. I guess one other minor difference, weekday mass often 50% attendance and Sunday is usually over 75%.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: pacearrow02 on June 30, 2022, 02:27:24 PM
I found the article but did misread.  West Virginia prices are 35/40% higher than they should be because of some Joe Manchin as Governor passed thing.

So without that “Joe Manchin as gov passed thing” they would have the lowest rates in the country?  Their current rates are already very low when compared to the other 49.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 30, 2022, 02:29:56 PM
Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

no, this is sad-

  so if i said this sitting/stumbling potus should be assassinated, that's all good?  i'm gonna take a wild guess and say the board beatdown would be swift and unrelentless...as it should be.  but for you guys who own the board, projecting onto your adversaries...meh?? 

  yes, character revealed
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Spaniel with a Short Tail on June 30, 2022, 02:30:27 PM
Ever since Pope Francis was installed, I made a point to go to church more often and upped my Sunday donation. He is a refreshing step forward and our most recent pastors are following his lead. I'd hate to see the Catholic church take a step backwards after he dies.

As to Rocket's two murder question, the results vary state to state but a person charged in the death of a pregnant woman would not face two murder charges. As TAMU noted, the charge related to the death of the fetus would be under an entirely different law than the murder charge. A fetus is not recognized as a person for these purposes, just like the census does not recognize them nor are they counted for any entitlement program.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 02:43:10 PM
no, this is sad-

  so if i said this sitting/stumbling potus should be assassinated, that's all good?  i'm gonna take a wild guess and say the board beatdown would be swift and unrelentless...as it should be.  but for you guys who own the board, projecting onto your adversaries...meh?? 

  yes, character revealed

We should assassinate Trump, too
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Dickthedribbler on June 30, 2022, 02:54:19 PM
We should assassinate Trump, too

If you weren't amusing yourself enough before, I would guess this ought to just about do.
Title: Re: Protecting the Constitution
Post by: Uncle Rico on June 30, 2022, 03:07:20 PM
If you weren't amusing yourself enough before, I would guess this ought to just about do.

Trump’s favorite book is The Bible.  I’d assume heaven can’t wait for him