The Supremes

[Starfleet Command 441]

4 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.

It's odd and definitely fitting to these stupid times.  This is the way that non-lawyers think of the law - that you can just say some magic words to undo whatever Gordian knot that has been formed in the substance of the opinion/document/whatever.  

[DDD Dad 14331]

19 minutes 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.

Fewer than 40 percent of delegates at the 1976 Republican national convention considered themselves pro-life.  Public opinion polls in 1976 showed Republican voters were, on average, more pro-choice than their Democratic counterparts.  Betty Ford called Roe  a "great, great decision."

Donald Critchlow, "The GOP's Abortion Strategy: Why Pro-Choice Republicans Became Pro-Life in the 1970s," 23 The Journal of Policy History 4, 2011.

[Starfleet Command 441]

Nixon and Ford were libs.

[BrickHorn 18217]

11 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. 

Why wouldn’t you believe the majority about that, just because three of them also recently pinky-swore not to overturn the specific right their opinion overturns?

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by BrickHorn

[JBJ 3654]

3 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

"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. 

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

[gmr548 16576]

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

Uh, the peaceful transition of power, for one.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

6 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's odd and definitely fitting to these stupid times.  This is the way that non-lawyers think of the law - that you can just say some magic words to undo whatever Gordian knot that has been formed in the substance of the opinion/document/whatever.  

now that i think about it, didn't bush v gore have some language in it that says something like "this application of the 14th amendment is unique to GWB here, don't anyone else try it"?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Fewer than 40 percent of delegates at the 1976 Republican national convention considered themselves pro-life.  Public opinion polls in 1976 showed Republican voters were, on average, more pro-choice than their Democratic counterparts.  Betty Ford called Roe  a "great, great decision."

Donald Critchlow, "The GOP's Abortion Strategy: Why Pro-Choice Republicans Became Pro-Life in the 1970s," 23 The Journal of Policy History 4, 2011.

That's before I was a fetus, so I honestly don't remember.  My entire life, the GOP has been pro life and anti-Roe.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That's before I was a fetus, so I honestly don't remember.  My entire life, the GOP has been pro life and anti-Roe.

Holy shit, what a classic dodge.  "How can I be held to an opinion that reaches back to before I was born?"

Get fucked.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

17 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Fuck this guy. 

This is honestly the most intensely stupid statement I've seen in the past 24 hours.  And I've conversed with Johnny Sack.  "We need an anti-majoritarian structure to preserve democracy" is right up there with "we had the burn the village to save it" in terms of absurdities.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That's before I was a fetus, so I honestly don't remember.  My entire life, the GOP has been pro life and anti-Roe.

So I take it you have no opinion as to the veracity of the Bible, inasmuch as the events recited therein happened before you were a fetus?

[TXSooner518 2438]

Healthcare. Romneycare was enacted in 2006.

Good call. Guns also.

[YChang 3443]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Good call. Guns also.

Might even be witnessing a shift in their attitude towards being pro-corporations & free trade as well now. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by YChang

[workswithseed 2095]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Answer the question, coward.

Coward? Ha no. If I'm on one of the islands that are being made by China. I don't think the constitution is what gives me the ability to bear arms.

[Aqua Buddha 14582]

30 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

They became pro Russia as well.

[Gatorubet 30189]

30 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

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?

Dude.  Struggle is a part of his name. 

[Pancho 44720]

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

[Mo Horn 8831]

Just now, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

And anti death penalty

[wildcat09 29348]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

They also wouldn't have rabidly opposed emergency pandemic restrictions.

They were perfectly happy to condemn millions to horrific death in order to be able to eat at fucking Applebees. I don't want to hear a single goddamned word from any Republican about how they're pro-life.

[Satchel 6935]

 

[DDD Dad 14331]

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Coward? Ha no. If I'm on one of the islands that are being made by China. I don't think the constitution is what gives me the ability to bear arms.

What did I tell you, Russ?

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

 

Yeah, because there aren't many, many "pro-lifers" who have paid for their mistress', maid's, secretary's or babysitter' abortions. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Seasick Sailor

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

I'm all for BLM to keep taking suckers' money and buying luxury homes.  

[Satchel 6935]

Just now, Seasick Sailor said:

You seem to be implying that Thomas wouldn't vote to overturn Loving because he is in an interracial marriage as if there aren't many, many "pro-lifers" who have paid for their mistress', maid's, secretary's or babysitter' abortions. 

When it comes to racism, Clarence is blind as Uncle Ruckus.

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

I will never be tired of pantsing @Johnny Sack for plagiarism of ideas and lying about the content of a publication he's paraphrasing. He could've at least linked the article and provided the excerpt rather than representing it as his own idea

[TexArcher 37771]

18 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

 

17 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

And anti death penalty

 

And they wouldn't be against every social program that helps people who are having a hard time financially.

To paraphrase George Carlin: Republicans only care about you when you're a fetus and when you're old enough to join the military.  In between, you're on your own.

[royiv 9273]

43 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Healthcare. Romneycare was enacted in 2006.

Add:

Foreign Policy & Trade

Religion 

Guns

[F250 28764]

3 minutes ago, royiv said:

Add:

Foreign Policy & Trade

Religion 

Guns

Border wall.

Isolationism

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by F250

[Macanudo 12976]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I'm all for BLM to keep taking suckers' money and buying luxury homes.  

I am all for calling you a sack of shit.

[DDD Dad 14331]

4 minutes ago, royiv said:

Add:

Foreign Policy & Trade

Religion 

Guns

 

Just now, F250 said:

Border wall.

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

[F250 28764]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

Well, they literally got rid of their platform a couple of years ago so yeah. But other than that nothing has changed.

 

[workswithseed 2095]

16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

What did I tell you, Russ?

Never do a vesectemy during a radio broadcast?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I am all for calling you a sack of shit.

That is hurtful.

[workswithseed 2095]

18 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

What did I tell you, Russ?

So it does give me the right to bear arms in China? Maybe stop being a coward and tell me what you mean, same for brisket.

[DDD Dad 14331]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Never do a vesectemy during a radio broadcast?

 

 

[DDD Dad 14331]

35 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Coward? Ha no. If I'm on one of the islands that are being made by China. I don't think the constitution is what gives me the ability to bear arms.

 

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So it does give me the right to bear arms in China? Maybe stop being a coward and tell me what you mean, same for brisket.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution doesn't give you the ability to bear arms in China.  Just spitballing, though.

[TXSooner518 2438]

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. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

It's not JUST that they oppose their own previous policies when rrrrradical Dems try to pass them, it's the hysterical level of opposition to their own previous policies, in this case, Cap And Trade.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/oregon-legislature-climate-change-bill-chaos.html

[BHMCruiser 1813]

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

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?

[Brisketexan 105083]

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

Bro, you sound like someone who doesn't support rights and laws that aren't "deeply rooted in history."  Even my slaves are appalled at your disregard for historical norms.  My wife might be, too, if I let her read.  But she couldn't do anything about it, because she can't open a bank account or hold a credit card in her own name.  I slip her some cash so she can do some grocery shopping, but keeping her out of major financial matters is "deeply rooted in history," so I follow that lead.

[DDD Dad 14331]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

Not anymore anyway.

[BHMCruiser 1813]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Not anymore anyway.

never was

[BHMCruiser 1813]

which is to say nothing about the policy issue. Abortion is good public policy in any number of ways. 

[BHMCruiser 1813]

And whether Roe was rightly decided or not, this is a huge blow for stare decisis and signals to everybody that everything we thought was rock solid is now up to a majority vote at the Supreme Court without limitation. 

[workswithseed 2095]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I'm thinking of Russ Martin and trying to remember if it was actually a different surgery that he had on air. 

On 5/1/2022 at 10:35 AM, Sawbonz said:

 

Sorry

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution doesn't give you the ability to bear arms in China.  Just spitballing, though.

It's like I'm saying it's not a right that government gives me, it's universal. Don't know why my comment saying about lawyers using the word penumbra and calling it lawyer magic has to do with any of it.

 

[hobbes2702 13030]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

According to @Johnny Sack they haven’t moved to the right on anything. Any thoughts on revising that statement?

[Brisketexan 105083]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

which is to say nothing about the policy issue. Abortion up to the 200th trimester is good public policy in any number of ways. 

FIF fully accurate policy statement.

[Brisketexan 105083]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

And whether Roe was rightly decided or not, this is a huge blow for stare decisis and signals to everybody that everything we thought was rock solid is now up to a majority vote at the Supreme Court without limitation. 

Bingo.  It's Calvinball now (it has been for a while, this just sealed the deal).

[DDD Dad 14331]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

never was

Oh?

From the syllabus:

"the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."