-
Posts
10232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Johnny Sack
-
-
33 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:
- 1
- 17
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Js1 said:
You're just rightfully upset and lashing out at the wrong people.
I can't help you. You woke up ready to be mad at the Dems for something the GOP/unelected SCOTUS did. A lot of y'all wake up every day ready to be mad at the party trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit while the far right keeps lighting the kitchen on fire.
Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected? I don't really understand that critique. Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.
- 1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:
Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Barret all lied under oath, impeach them.
No they did not. They said it was precedent. It was.
- 1
-
4 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:
It was settled precedent. Now Dobbs is.
- 8
-
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Yet it’s going to happen, because it’s the inevitable result of the underlying disingenuous reasoning applied by the majority. It will happen, and you own it.
Also, there’s a long history of US jurisdiction banning the carrying of weapons (check your guns in with the sheriff, you get them back when you leave). Funny how some long-standing practices matter, and some don’t.I disagree. Thomas is on an island on that one. And he is wrong. I agree with the majority. Thomas would need four justices to join him. They declined to do so.
- 1
-
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
Where is the right to a concealed weapon in the Constitution?
The same place the right to free speech or vote is not predicated on showing some bureaucrat that “proper cause exists” before doing so.
-
Abortion is not a constitutional right. States can allow it, but it is not a constitutional right. Not even close. Roe was wrongly decided. If you want a constitutional right to abortion, get enough support for an amendment.
- 1
- 10
-
3 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:
How is all of this less/smaller government?
How is taking power from the federal government and returning it to the states less/smaller government?
- 1
- 1
-
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Do you agree with Thomas’s dissent? Yes or no?No.
-
2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:
Even if you're anti-abortion--and that's your prerogative--imagine taking as much joy in this decision as Johnny is and spiking the football, knowing full well how devastating this is to women's rights. What a sad little man.
It is not devastating to the females in utero that are being dismembered.
- 1
- 16
-
Alito dunking on the dissent with stone cold facts:
The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a “‘deeply rooted’” one, “‘in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; see post, at 12–14 (joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.). The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise. Compare post, at 12–14, n. 2, with supra, at 15–16, and n. 23. Nor does the dissent dispute the fact that abortion was illegal at common law at least after quickening; that the 19th century saw a trend toward criminalization of pre-quickening abortions; that by 1868, a supermajority of States (at least 26 of 37) had enacted statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy; that by the late 1950s at least 46 States prohibited abortion “however and whenever performed” except if necessary to save “the life of the mother,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 139; and that when Roe was decided in 1973 similar statutes were still in effect in 30 States. Compare post, at 12–14, nn. 2–3, with supra, at 23–25, and nn. 33–34.47
The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position. We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due
Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). But despite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage
with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy The dissent attempts to obscure this failure by misrepresenting our application of Glucksberg. The dissent suggests that we have focused only on “the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,” post, at 26, but our review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period. As explained, for more than a century after 1868—including “another half-century” after women gained the constitutional right to vote in 1920, see post, at 15; Amdt. 19—it was firmly established that laws prohibiting abortion like the Texas law at issue in Roe were permissible exercises of state regulatory authority. And today, another half century later, more than half of the States have asked us to overrule Roe and Casey. The dissent cannot establish that a right to abortion has ever been part of this Nation’s tradition.- 1
- 20
-
-
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
So is the three-fifths clause.
It was. Until the 14th amendment was ratified.
Maybe try for an abortion right amendment.
Good luck!
- 1
-
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:
As usual, you are incorrect here.
6-3 on judgment that MS law was constitutional.
5-4 on Roe.
- 2
-
From the majority:
"The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.”
Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”13 Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."
- 3
-
39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
Hey, it was only 5-4!
It was 6-3
-
30 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:
Really not that weird. One of them is actually in the Constitution.
- 1
- 20
-
9 hours ago, gmr548 said:
Totally owned that lib Breyer lol!1!1!1 gig em!Breyer's dissent is awful. Nothing but irrelevant drivel.
- 1
- 1
-
16 hours ago, aggie08 said:
I know that this is probably a novel concept for you guys, but people don't actually have still believe and cling to the dumb fuck opinions that they had about something 10 years ago. They can take in new information and acknowledge that they used to have dumb fuck opinions on certain issues.
Ten years ago Biden's brain was still functional.
15 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:Any of you chuckle fucks want to take part in the 1/6 hearings thread? You know, the one where your heroes are getting completely pantsed as the complete motherfucking traitors they are? No? Because that is what is happening.
Nah, let's just camp out and take pot shots at Joe Biden for random shit from the past that is barely relevant.
Dozens of people care about the 1/6 hearings.
- 1
- 1
- 5
-
48 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:
Did they throw out an established precedent in doing so? Wouldn’t that make them just like the lying scum you willingly spread your chump ass for? No?
Putz.You talking about Plessy? Or some other bad precedent that was overruled?
- 2
- 1
-
36 minutes ago, Captainant said:
Which is why I thought it was a sack special from some fringe fedsoc rag. It's surprising to see that sort of shit in a published opinion and not just from an angry and hateful church elder on a football message board
We can’t all have the reasoned logic and compassion of Surly cloak room leftists. We can only hope to emulate you guys. You all seem very sane, rational and happy with your lives.
- 1
- 1
- 2
The Supremes
in Cloak Room
Posted
Aren't you the guy who was banging a sex worker and posting about it on the internet?