The Supremes

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

This really adds to the discussion.  Well done.

Not enough rage F bombs?

[StruggleBus 3922]

32 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

lmao

 

The right has been against murdering babies for ages. Graphic looks correct. 

[DDD Dad 14331]

1 minute ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Not enough rage F bombs?

You did a fly-by of your own to make a direct personal attack on someone, while offering nothing substantive to the discussion.  That's why I negged your post.  If you aren't going to engage in the discussion you should go back to the DT forum where it's safer for you.

[Chad Fuck 17661]

Indeed Pelosi should start pushing legislation concerning this.  Not only the rape and incest clauses, but also for reform and bolstering of programs like Planned Parenthood.  If the courts want to revisit and reform the legality of abortion, then the legislature should be looking at reforming the programs intended to support mothers of, and unwanted children.  
Start with sex education and birth control and run it all the way through setting higher standards for foster care systems in states, particularly those who outlaw abortion, like Texas.   
Make these fuckers who are so concerned about those zygotes financially accountable for their well being pre and post natal, up until they are at least 18.  Notice I said accountable, not responsible.  That means safety nets for those kids to fall back on for physical and mental health.    Picture little Marie going to her first day of school in Podunk, Texas, and already she's labeled as the kid of that slut who got raped.  Well just move then, right. Have the mom start a new life somewhere else.  Way away from family and home.  Makes tons of sense.   There is definitely a disconnect in how much we care for a fetus and how much we want to shame the fuck out of people, even the innocents.  
I maintain that most of those carrying the anti abortion banner are actually more anti-sex.  Their sex lives suck (due to a variety of reasons) and unwanted pregnancies are often the result of unprotected sex, so punish those who have sex for any other purpose that procreation.    

[Brisketexan 105083]

1 minute ago, StruggleBus said:

The right has been against murdering babies for ages. Graphic looks correct. 

Do you support capital murder charges for all women who hire someone to murder their child?  Please state your position, and if you oppose, please state the moral basis for your opposition to using the law to its fullest extent to protect the most vulnerable.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

You did a fly-by of your own to make a direct personal attack on someone, while offering nothing substantive to the discussion.  That's why I negged your post.  If you aren't going to engage in the discussion you should go back to the DT forum where it's safer for you.

I’ve actually somewhat read most of this thread stemming back to last night, or tried to. Shake my at some posts like aces. So if you don’t commit 10 hrs a day to CR discussion, you’re considered a fly by? Lol.

[DDD Dad 14331]

Just now, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I’ve actually somewhat read most of this thread stemming back to last night, or tried to. Shake my at some posts like aces. So if you don’t commit 10 hrs a day to CR discussion, you’re considered a fly by? Lol.

If your takes on constitutional law are half as ill-informed as your COVID posts I can hardly wait to see you weigh in.

[TexArcher 37771]

5 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

The right has been against murdering babies for ages. Graphic looks correct. 

Unless the babies are brown and their parents speak some desert or jungle language...

We killed over 500,000 civilians in Iraq because a Republican president was mad they tried to kill his daddy and a Republican vice president wanted a no-bid government contract for the company he owned to rebuild the whole place.  Legit LMAO at Republicans trying to claim the moral high ground on not killing innocents.  A person would have to be pure evil or really ignorant to even attempt it with a straight face.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by TexArcher

[Starfleet Command 441]

 

21 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

And that's fair.  Because @Johnny Sack doesn't care about "life"--he's not a vegetarian.  He only purportedly cares about human life.

But as to "going inside the womb to kill," I suppose that depends a lot on what method we're talking about.  If it is a pharmaceutical abortion, then nobody is going inside anywhere.  It's just that the nonviable fetus is expelled.  And being expelled from its shelter, the nonviable fetus cannot survive (which kind of makes it materially distinguishable from a human).

And Johnny should love that.  After all, we all know how much he hates the homeless.

I believe Sack's preferred nomenclature for the poor and homeless is "dumpster lice."  Please be considerate.

[Vegas64 673]

Not Brisket anchoring to a position, extrapolated to an extreme, and stalling out an active discussion through beating the dead horse of making the same point over and over and over and over....

Lay out your point, which you did and it was well stated and we all agree, now kindly move on please, or at least take another number and go to the back of the line if you want to repeat yourself.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

If your takes on constitutional law are half as ill-informed as your COVID posts I can hardly wait to see you weigh in.

I’ll just say I’m following the science so I’m never wrong.

[DDD Dad 14331]

1 minute ago, Starfleet Command said:

 

I believe Sack's preferred nomenclature for the poor is "the help".

[Brisketexan 105083]

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

Not Brisket anchoring to a position, extrapolated to an extreme, and stalling out an active discussion through beating the dead horse of making the same point over and over and over and over....

Lay out your point, which you did and it was well stated and we all agree, now kindly move on please, or at least take another number and go to the back of the line if you want to repeat yourself.

Well, I mean, NOW I want to ask whether we should use lethal injection, or stone the evil bitches to death to really make a point, but sure, I'll move on.  Just so we all understand the end-game here.

[Vegas64 673]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, I mean, NOW I want to ask whether we should use lethal injection, or stone the evil bitches to death to really make a point, but sure, I'll move on.  Just so we all understand the end-game here.

It's the lawyer in you. You are forgiven.

[DDD Dad 14331]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, I mean, NOW I want to ask whether we should use lethal injection, or stone the evil bitches to death to really make a point, but sure, I'll move on.  Just so we all understand the end-game here.

[TXSooner518 2438]

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. 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

"The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

And if you read the whole thing, they're not calling for the enactment of a constitutional amendment.  They're supporting the efforts of those who seek a constitutional amendment.

But that acknowledges that Roe is good law.  And that's not what you said.  You said that they were opposed to Roe.  And that's not true.  Republican efforts to overturn Roe didn't start until the 1980s.

[Foosters 17843]

13 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I’ve actually somewhat read most of this thread stemming back to last night, or tried to.

Which words were you struggling with?

[burntorangebongos 10710]

It is stupid, in a way, that I feel profound sadness that after all we've been through, all the work put in, that we still earn about .80 cents to the male dollar and our profound right to our health and welfare is being dictated to. I'm not a real smart person so I can't express this as eloquently as I would like but I will try.  My nieces and their daughters should have the only say in their well being in consultation with their doctor. PERIOD. 

If the men in our communities and in our government think their beliefs and feelings are more important than our need for self protection, then I think it only fair that I stop having to pay premiums to insurance companies to cover your boner pills. If my health and welfare isn't important enough for you then yours isn't to me. Pay for your own fucking erections and fuck yourselves while your at it. 

Well, that last part is about as eloquent as I get. Guess I'll go cry in some beer and think up ways to help those who need it. Something something abortion pills and telemedicine underground something.

Edited May 3, 2022 by burntorangebongos

[StruggleBus 3922]

13 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Unless the babies are brown and their parents speak some desert or jungle language...

We killed over 500,000 civilians in Iraq because a Republican president was mad they tried to kill his daddy and a Republican vice president wanted a no-bid government contract for the company he owned to rebuild the whole place.  Legit LMAO at Republicans trying to claim the moral high ground on not killing innocents.  A person would have to be pure evil or really ignorant to even attempt it with a straight face.

 

Cool. Not sure why you're rambling in my direction

[4th&Five 41519]

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And if you read the whole thing, they're not calling for the enactment of a constitutional amendment.  They're supporting the efforts of those who seek a constitutional amendment.

But that acknowledges that Roe is good law.  And that's not what you said.  You said that they were opposed to Roe.  And that's not true.  Republican efforts to overturn Roe didn't start until the 1980s.

I think supporting efforts of those to get a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children seems pretty damn hostile to Roe.  Seems to me like that goes much further than wanting to overturn Roe as it would apply and invalidate abortion access in blue states. I bet democrats at the time damn sure thought the GOP wanted to overturn Roe.  They have said that all my life as have Republicans.

In any event, it's been for a long time.  And the Musk meme was starting in 2008.

[Gil Bang 25922]

 

 

[StruggleBus 3922]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Do you support capital murder charges for all women who hire someone to murder their child?  Please state your position, and if you oppose, please state the moral basis for your opposition to using the law to its fullest extent to protect the most vulnerable.

I support abortion. The whole point was that the twitter post was stupid. Go yell at a different cloud. 

[workswithseed 2095]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Where do your rights come from?  Tell me, do you believe that your rights are granted to you by the Constitution?

I'm not some materialist who believes that their are really no rights only permissions. It's still funny that this does sound like lawyer magic. 

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"

[JBJ 3654]

6 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

Wrong.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think supporting efforts of those to get a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children seems pretty damn hostile to Roe.  Seems to me like that goes much further than wanting to overturn Roe as it would apply and invalidate abortion access in blue states. I bet democrats at the time damn sure thought the GOP wanted to overturn Roe.  They have said that all my life as have Republicans.

In any event, it's been for a long time.  And the Musk meme was starting in 2008.

"Roe is wrongly decided" is very different from "Roe is correctly decided, and so we need to change the Constitution."  The Republicans in 1976 were saying the latter.

But in any event, the Elon Musk tweet is stupid and wrong, as evidenced by the numerous people on this very board (myself included) who were Republicans in 2008.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

It is stupid, in a way, that I feel profound sadness that after all we've been through, all the work put in, that we still earn about .80 cents to the male dollar and our profound right to our health and welfare is being dictated to. I'm not a real smart person so I can't express this as eloquently as I would like but I will try.  My nieces and their daughters should have the only say in their well being in consultation with their doctor. PERIOD. 

If the men in our communities and in our government think their beliefs and feelings are more important than our need for self protection, then I think it only fair that I stop having to pay premiums to insurance companies to cover your boner pills. If my health and welfare isn't important enough for you then yours isn't to me. Pay for your own fucking erections and fuck yourselves while your at it. 

Well, that last part is about as eloquent as I get. Guess I'll go cry in some beer and think up ways to help those who need it. Something something abortion pills and telemedicine underground something.

You believe that 80 cents on the dollar horseshit?

[Aqua Buddha 14582]

51 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The GOP has not moved its position on abortion.  It's always been against Roe.

There used to be numerous pro choice Republicans and the general consensus even amongst pro lifers were exceptions for rape and what not.  That’s certainly not the case now.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, let's say SCOTUS disregards this "precedence" angle and overturns Roe V Wade.  Does that not create new precedent?  Where is the legal analysis regarding competing precedents?  Asking for an engineer who knows jack about ConLaw.

There is a relatively newly developed jurisprudence specifically to "analyze" when a precedent "should/can" be overruled or discarded.  Cogent summary here. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45319.html

[TexArcher 37771]

11 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

Cool. Not sure why you're rambling in my direction

Because you had the audacity to say that Republicans have been against murdering babies for ages.  I pointed out that they absolutely have not.  Did you not read the response or just not understand it?

Edited May 3, 2022 by TexArcher

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

"Roe is wrongly decided" is very different from "Roe is correctly decided, and so we need to change the Constitution."  The Republicans in 1976 were saying the latter.

But in any event, the Elon Musk tweet is stupid and wrong, as evidenced by the numerous people on this very board (myself included) who were Republicans in 2008.

What positions have the GOP moved right on since you were in the GOP in 2008?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

There used to be numerous pro choice Republicans and the general consensus even amongst pro lifers were exceptions for rape and what not.  That’s certainly not the case now.

There still are pro choice Republicans.  And many pro lifers still support those exceptions.

[StruggleBus 3922]

Just now, TexArcher said:

Because you had the audacity to say that Republicans have always been against murdering babies.  I pointed out that they absolutely have not.  Did you not read the response or just not understand it?

Your post was retarded and you're mad. Get help. 

[TexEx15 17509]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You believe that 80 cents on the dollar horseshit?

https://blog.dol.gov/2021/03/19/5-facts-about-the-state-of-the-gender-pay-gap

”According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, in 2020, women’s annual earnings were 82.3% of men’s, and the gap is even wider for many women of color. Though women only made 57 cents per dollar earned by men in 1973 when this Department of Labor PSA was made, progress has stalled and we’re still far from closing the pay gap. ”

Edited May 3, 2022 by TexEx15

[TXSooner518 2438]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Wrong.

Feel free to expound. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

https://blog.dol.gov/2021/03/19/5-facts-about-the-state-of-the-gender-pay-gap

”According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, in 2020, women’s annual earnings were 82.3% of men’s, and the gap is even wider for many women of color. Though women only made 57 cents per dollar earned by men in 1973 when this Department of Labor PSA was made, progress has stalled and we’re still far from closing the pay gap. ”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/06/dispelling-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/?sh=5da9ab4e46fa

 

[TexArcher 37771]

3 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

Your post was retarded and you're mad. Get help. 

Eat some shit, Fox News sock puppet.

[JBJ 3654]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

Feel free to expound. 

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

[Starfleet Command 441]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

I don't know how this will all play out but prosecuting rape victims as felons may end up being the proverbial poisoned chalice. 

 

From a practical standpoint, the Republicans were much better off simply abrogating Roe on the ground by killing off providers.  Overturning Roe is either setting up for something else (like allowing red states to ignore Obergefell) or this is simply a power move showing how little they care about the ever feeble, meek, mild, and ultimately worthless dems.

[TXSooner518 2438]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What positions have the GOP moved right on since you were in the GOP in 2008?

Immigration

Police brutality

Vaccinations

Self over society

Party over country

Conspiracy theories

Voter suppression

Book burning and banning

 

Just for a few, not to mention devolving into an insane cult of personality around Trump.  I voted GOP in 1996, 2000, 2004 and libertarian in 2012 and 2016 and Dem in 2008 and 2020. 

[workswithseed 2095]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Eat some shit, Fox News sock puppet.

Got'em.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Quote

"And 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. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

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.

[TXSooner518 2438]

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. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by TXSooner518

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

Fuck this guy. 

[TXSooner518 2438]

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.  

[Brisketexan 105083]

2 minutes 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.

In short, that statement can only be lie.  It IS a lie, it is a shameless lie, and it will always be a lie.  Either the reasoning applies to rights, or it does not.

[Brisketexan 105083]

15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'm not some materialist who believes that their are really no rights only permissions. It's still funny that this does sound like lawyer magic. 

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"

Answer the question, coward.

[F250 28766]

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

This could be page 1 of an Introduction to Logic textbook.  First exercise, class: what's wrong with this statement?

 

There seems to be a glaring issue regarding sufficiency and necessity in that statement. Converse fallacy?

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

Immigration
Police brutality
Vaccinations
Self over society
Party over country
Conspiracy theories
Voter suppression
Book burning and banning
 
Just for a few, not to mention devolving into an insane cult of personality around Trump.  I voted GOP in 1996, 2000, 2004 and libertarian in 2012 and 2016 and Dem in 2008 and 2020. 

Healthcare. Romneycare was enacted in 2006.