Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2484
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. Same also. Also I’d never ask to see the hand in that spot bc if he has some random dickhead pair that he missed or whatever now you lost the whole pot. I do enjoy a good spite action though so can’t fault you too much.

  2. Do you know anyone who likes being sued just because they do their job? 

    Especially sued under a law that egregiously strips due process away from defendants?
    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Other than lock downs, vaccine mandates, the second amendment, free markets, lower taxes, less regulations on your private business, religious freedoms, forced baking cakes, ACA mandates, right to work without being forced to participate in or fund a union, school choice, etc.

    Unless of course my private business wishes to require masks or vaccines, right? Or sell booze on Sundays. Or perform abortions. Or have a poker room. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  4. 5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I guess we’ll find out how important it is to voters.  We get to elect state legislators in November.  

    In rigged gerrymandered elections, yep, sure do. 

    • Rage+1 2
  5. 5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Texas abortion law is nowhere close to being in line with the majority of voters.

    This. Not to mention 4 of the 5 justices voting to overturn were appointed by a President who was elected by losing the popular vote, and the 5th was appointed by a President who got a whopping 37% of the popular vote in the next election. Definitely, for sure, totally, the will of the people being reflected here. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6.  
    So we are having a discussion about (sadly) common occurrences that affect real people, and as a rebuttal you post some nut job who thinks abortion should be legal up to the time where the last foot is out of the birth canal. And you don’t understand why you are being ridiculed.
     
     Hey this one crazy lady thinks abortion should be legal at 40 weeks. Clearly it follows we need to ban all abortions at any gestational age for any reason 

    Same standard shit from the DeSantis thread. Teachers mentioning marriage tangentially when kids go kid must mean that they want to show buttfuck videos to 1st graders bc of one video of someone with blue hair on Libs of TikTok. It’s sooooo asinine and ridiculous and transparent. And yet.
    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 1
  7. You can pass any law you want.  It would not be constitutional.

    So blowjobs IYO are specifically constitutionally protected? Including man on man? And that was contemplated when the Constitution was ratified or what?
    • Like 1
  8. 25 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

    I get what you're saying but that position currently has 3.5 votes at SCOTUS

    And if the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that people could own slaves, rape their wives, or that states could decide if Blacks could go to integrated schools today, I'd happily disagree just the same. When embarassing partisan hacks are appointed by exponentially the worst president in history, my deference only stretches so far. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  9. 6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Point 1: There's a process for this and it's not judicial.  In the example you give I assume legislatures have amended laws to meet the changing attitudes of society.

    Point 2: The basic argument from Roe is that abortion is a unenumermated right.  Unenumerated rights are those not specifically named in the constitution but are so ingrained in history and culture that they would not have even been thought of to be made explicit.  The right to freely travel within the nation is a common example.  The presumption of innocence is another.

    Both are using ECL to support their claims that this was or was not an unenumerated right.  By showing what is illegal or not under ECL.  ECL is not an atypical battleground for these discussions because that's where the vast majority of our law comes from.

    Basically, it was/wasn't legal throughout our full legal history, so it can/can't be a fundamental right.  If times have changed, that's evidence that Roe is wrong and Alito is right.

    Point 1 - LOL no they haven't. 

    Point 2 - Wrong. Roe specifically applies the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in protecting fundamental privacy rights, as do a litany of other cases. It can be fundamental without having been enumerated in the original text of the Constitution. They don't have to have been ingrained in history, since, ya know, history is chock full of fucking over every minority at every opportunity possible. 

    Do you think slavery should be addressed by the state legislatures? Segregation? Interracial marriage? Access to contraception?  Legality of gay sex or sodomy?  Ability to rape your wife?  Ability to beat your wife? 

  10. 19 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

    You're basically making Alito's point, which is that the Constitution does not protect these "reproductive rights," so the legislature should deal with them. The legislature has dealt with your other examples, on issues of employment, access to credit, spousal rape and abuse, etc. Why can it not deal with abortion as well, since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

    Strongly disagree. I believe that Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, Casey, etc., were correctly decided based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. My point is that the opinion of jagoffs in mid-1700s England is irrelevant to these discussions today. 

    Absolutely cannot leave people's core rights in life, such as the right to marry, travel, family plan, have sex, etc., up to the whims of partisan legislatures, even before the cascading waterfall of bullshit voter suppression and gerrymandering. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
  11. 49 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    That's literally the equivalent of calling something a high misdemeanor.  These are legal terms not personal opinions.

    Not gonna review the entire treatise to see if this was a true, clear-minded legal statement completely untinged with Hale's opinion. Let's stipulate that you are correct. Even with that, two GIANT differences:

    1) One is written in 1973 and the other in 2022. It's a half-century later, which has drastically shifted the role of women in society. 1973 is not far removed from women are there for men as property mindset that many had in the 1950s etc. The sexual revolution and idea of career women was taking off. Let's take opinion of spousal rape in 1973 and compare it to 2022 for example. 

    2) Roe is using Hale's piece as a counter-example: "Even in repressive times, this was not illegal."  Alito's opinion is using what was illegal in the 1700s to argue what should be illegal today. Who gives one flying fuck what a society that said a man could beat and rape his wife thinks about women's reproductive freedom in 2022??  It's abhorrent. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
  12. 1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    Lulz at this.  Remember folks: this is a reasoned approach to the legal analysis of the right at issue.  Also, this approach is completely wrong for any other right.

    THIS opinion is only about abortion. The NEXT one will only be about contraception, or gay marriage, or anti-sodomy laws, or striking the right to vote from anyone who registrered as a Dem for being an anti-American commie.  

    • Rage+1 3
  13. 2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    You invented the claim, you expound.  You could even read the leaked draft.

    "Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a 'great misprision.."

    This is from the opinion. This is sharing Hale's OPINION about abortion. Ctrl+F "Hale" in Roe opinion finds one citation that says "abortion of a pre-quickened child was not an indictable offense."  This is sharing a FACT about previous abortion law.

    Again, expound. 

  14. 15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Roe does also.  Most substantive due process cases will cite Hale, Coke, Blackstone, etc al.  Because ECL is where historical support for various unenumerated rights come from.

    Massively disingenuous. Roe's only citation to Hale is to show that abortion of a pre-quickened child was not indictable. This horseshit uses Hale's words and opinions of abortion. First is factual. Second is relying on medieval opinions to support the squelching of constitutional protections. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
  15. 6 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

    Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

    Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

    A clump of cells the size of a sunflower seed is not "a healthy child."  Just overwhelmingly absurd framing. And no person has a right to use another person's body for its survival, right?  Where exactly is that found in the constitution?  I may need a kidney transplant later in life, can I just decide to take someone else's kidney to support me staying alive? No? Oh I see.  

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...