The Supremes

[Bookman 4639]

I don't understand all the teeth gnashing. We voted on this in 2016. Remember all the pussy hats?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

I'm saying that the people who ratified the constitution, the bill of rights, and the fourteenth amendment were not contemplating abortion when they did so and certainly did not intend to protect that right by doing so

Where is the right to form the Air Force or the Space Force in the constitution? Because they weren’t specifically enumerated, does that mean they are unconstitutional? Originalism is a bankrupt legal philosophy 

oh and tell me more about originalism in context of the 2nd Amendment 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Pig Bellmont

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

6 months of watching Texas Republicans squirm to defend why women in the state must carry a rapists baybee will be awkward.

I’m sure it will be a bunch of staring at the floor with second hand embarrassment 

Something like this?

https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1521363687969214464?s=20&t=pCL5aqTp7YiBBLoMTO8SWg

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Where is the right to form the Air Force or the Space Force in the constitution? Because they weren’t specifically enumerated, does that mean they are unconstitutional? Originalism is a bankrupt legal philosophy 

Article I, Section 8

[CooterBrown 18022]

I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. 

It already is. IIRC, that’s why that woman had to be airlifted out of state for an abortion a few months ago.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. 

Unfortunately it already is. 
 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-forced-this-woman-to-deliver-a-stillborn-baby

[Sawbonz 27580]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Something like this?

https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1521363687969214464?s=20&t=pCL5aqTp7YiBBLoMTO8SWg

 

 

If I offered to fully fund your go fund me for your fucking wedding would you promise to stay off this website forever?

[workswithseed 2109]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

If I offered to fully fund your go fund me for your fucking wedding would you promise to stay off this website forever?

Woah, I can't show that her reply is no different than what exactly happened here? Fuck off, and stay on the issue at hand here.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

You'd have to look to "deeply rooted history" to see what lawmakers thought about that and abortion at the time.  Pick whichever time period - 14th, bill of rights, 17th century.

It's almost like it's never been considered a right.

Bullshit.   The right to abortion goes back to (at least) the Talmud.

But the right only likes to refer to "Judeo Christian" values when they want Jews to co-opt their "values."

 

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Woah, I can't show that her reply is no different than what exactly happened here? Fuck off, and stay on the issue at hand here.

Anyone who is not retarded can see that it’s completely different. You’re talking about essentially no limit on abortion by dates. Literally no one here is suggesting that we allow  aborting products of rape at the end of the third trimester. Go fuck yourself

[Neonmoon 38130]

So using Alitos opinion, could a blue state pass a law outlawing blowjobs? Marriage between whites? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So using Alitos opinion, could a blue state pass a law outlawing blowjobs? Marriage between whites? 

You can pass any law you want.  It would not be constitutional.

[workswithseed 2109]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Anyone who is not retarded can see that it’s completely different. You’re talking about essentially no limit on abortion by dates. Literally no one here is suggesting that we allow  aborting products of rape at the end of the third trimester. Go fuck yourself

I'm showing that people are for mental health in that clip as late as humanly possible. Stop acting as though that there is no one discussing it, that's why you had to add "here", she was talking about politicians having to discuss with a rape victim, she put it of the realm of "here". 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

 

 

[JBJ 3664]

46 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You said Marbury was established based on deep rooted history. How long had we had a Supreme Court or a constitution when that case was argued?

14 years.  But the concept of judicial review is a lot older.  It not only age, it's pervasiveness.  In fact, pervasiveness is more important.

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Yeah, no.

That's not right at all.  And, in fact, there was some discussion about whether such power would be vested with the judiciary.  It's just not clear that it was intended to be included based on those discussions.

There was discussion about the power but never whether or not it would be included.  It was assummed to exist.  It's also implied to exist in both the federalist papers and anti-federalist writings.  State ratifiers discussed it as if it existed.

I haven't seen anything that thought there was a possibilty it wasn't there at all, only what to do about it.  Like whether judges could also be legislators and what would happen if they were to rule on their own laws.

Feel free to point me in the right direction if there's an argument and evidence for it.  Never heard this argument before in a serious discussion.  I'm completely open to the idea that Marbury is bad law.

Edited May 4, 2022 by JBJ

[tchookem 3905]

 
 

I would have gone with "turtle Hell", but a fine effort nonetheless.

[Sawbonz 27580]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'm showing that people are for mental health in that clip as late as humanly possible. Stop acting as though that there is no one discussing it, that's why you had to add "here", she was talking about politicians having to discuss with a rape victim, she put it of the realm of "here". 

 

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 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

 

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

14 years.  But the concept of judicial review is a lot older.  It not only age, it's pervasiveness. 

How pervasive would you say the concept of right to bodily autonomy is currently? How about over the past 14 years?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

 

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 

Dude, consider who you are engaging with. WWS has the brain function of an amoeba.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So using Alitos opinion, could a blue state pass a law outlawing blowjobs? 

What?!  My wife told me that already passed!

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

11 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

This whole right being irate about it leaking is very odd and very obviously performative.  Such a strange path to choose here.  

[totallynotabuttpirate 5400]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

There was no right to engage in oral sex with your spouse.

My wife is definitely an Originalist. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

And then there's that whole Marbury v. Madison thing where the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution means even though it's not in the Constitution.  Novel idea!

 

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

It's almost like it's so "deeply rooted in history" that it didn't need to be enumerated?

Marbury v Madison has nothing to do with deeply rooted.  It’s a structural argument. Steer back to relevance.  

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

27 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Article I, Section 8

Yes, that’s the point. The framers didn’t contemplate an Air Force or space force, and you won’t find any words authorizing the creation of those military branches in the constitution- and yet, we can rightly interpret the constitutional authority from the clauses discussing armies and a navy. Weird 

[TXSooner518 2438]

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?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Yes, that’s the point. The framers didn’t contemplate an Air Force or space force, and you won’t find any words authorizing the creation of those military branches in the constitution- and yet, we can rightly interpret the constitutional authority from the clauses discussing armies and a navy. Weird 

I guess you might have a point if abortions did not exist back when the Constitution passed.  They did.

[TXSooner518 2438]

 
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.

[Bateshorn 9928]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

What is the definition of deep rooted history?

Whatever is pissing off Alito after a couple hours of devouring Fox News

[Foosters 17860]

23 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'm showing that people are for mental health in that clip as late as humanly possible. Stop acting as though that there is no one discussing it, that's why you had to add "here", she was talking about politicians having to discuss with a rape victim, she put it of the realm of "here". 

You're right, let's keep it on topic:

Should your fiance become impregnated via rape, what will you name your child after you forbid her from getting an abortion?

[JBJ 3664]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

How pervasive would you say the concept of right to bodily autonomy is currently? How about over the past 14 years?

Not at all pervasive as it relates to abortion.  That's not what makes Roe bad law though.  It's that it hasn't been pervasive through the 14A, BoR, or prior.  It's a literally never been pervasive, and the opposite is closer to true for colonial America.

[workswithseed 2109]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

You're right, let's keep it on topic:

Should your fiance become impregnated via rape, what will you name your child after you forbid her from getting an abortion?

I'll wait till it's about to come out, and smash the clump of cells with a rock. 

[Keef 776]

I had Sandy Levinson in law school and he thought we should just tear up the constitution and start fresh.  His argument was that its an old document that doesn't deal with modern problems (meaning, you can read it however you damn well please on issues like abortion, firearms, etc.), pretty short/lacking on details compared to other constitutions, and all the loop holes are known/exploited.  There's of course no way to practically accomplish this, but I often think back to his class and how right he was.

[TwiceHorn 31517]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

But the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't specified or even contemplated when the Constitution was ratified.  If that's the bar to clear, then slavery should be allowed today.

The argument is that the text of the constitution was amended by the 13th to explicitly prohibit slavery.  Whether it was previously an unenumerated "right" thus becomes completely irrelevant.

[Sawbonz 27580]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Not at all pervasive as it relates to abortion.  That's not what makes Roe bad law though.  It's that it hasn't been pervasive through the 14A, BoR, or prior.  It's a literally never been pervasive, and the opposite is closer to true for colonial America.

You’re going to have to be a little more specific with how abortion doesn’t relate to bodily autonomy. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'll wait till it's about to come out, and smash the clump of cells with a rock. 

You know let's think this out guys. I wouldn't mind seeing wws catch a murder charge. 

[workswithseed 2109]

19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

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 

Hey, some rape victims will get pregnant, and therefore abortion up to birth.

Now, that we have that out of the way. That's why I waffle on the rape/incest issue. I'd rather not kill people for doing nothing but be created, but it would make a lot more people happier if that was the few reasons that it was allowed. 

[SizzleChest 8284]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'll wait till it's about to come out, and smash the clump of cells with a rock. 

 

[Bateshorn 9928]

2 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Article I Section 9 says hi.

I normally dig your posts and I’ve been drinking, so if you could build on this, because my take on section 9 is context dependent:

Normal humans who read the Federalist Papers and letters of the founders: Slavery will destroy this republic and this is the compromise  we have agreed to get the northern colonies and South Carolina to sign. We’ll let the next generation deal with it.

Originalist reading textually: sLavEry wAs SanCTionEd bY tHe FoUNdeRs!

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Hey, some rape victims will get pregnant, and therefore abortion up to birth.

Now, that we have that out of the way. That's why I waffle on the rape/incest issue. I'd rather not kill people for doing nothing but be created, but it would make a lot more people happier if that was the few reasons that it was allowed. 

If you won’t let me help with the wedding, at least let me put some money towards a vasectomy for you

[Gil Bang 25986]

 

[workswithseed 2109]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

If you won’t let me help with the wedding, at least let me put some money towards a vasectomy for you

Hey, you can do whatever you want. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Dumb bitch still won't vote to get rid of the filibuster.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

42 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

May I say that last sentence was truly great and I fully intend to steal it.

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Dumb bitch still won't vote to get rid of the filibuster.

Because she’s bought and paid for 

[SizzleChest 8284]

3 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

May I say that last sentence was truly great and I fully intend to steal it.

 

You just have to replace "federal judges" with "sitting Vice President".

Oh, the terrarium.  Yeah, that too.

Edited May 4, 2022 by SizzleChest

[South Austin 52541]

19 minutes ago, Keef said:

I had Sandy Levinson in law school and he thought we should just tear up the constitution and start fresh.  His argument was that its an old document that doesn't deal with modern problems (meaning, you can read it however you damn well please on issues like abortion, firearms, etc.), pretty short/lacking on details compared to other constitutions, and all the loop holes are known/exploited.  There's of course no way to practically accomplish this, but I often think back to his class and how right he was.

I had Lino Graglia. He’s probably been pumping his fist all day.

Not-so-humblebrag: I got an A+ in his class.

[StruggleBus 3922]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

That might the most disappointing protest I’ve ever seen in my life