The Supremes

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

What the right isn’t really accounting for is the violent swing far left.  It’s coming.  Well, maybe they are accounting for it.  They’re just in the ‘get while the gettings good’ phase.  

Probably would be a good idea for Dems to start worrying about voting rights 30 years ago. 

[Biff Tannen 45,694]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

What the right isn’t really accounting for is the violent swing far left.  It’s coming.  Well, maybe they are accounting for it.  They’re just in the ‘get while the gettings good’ phase.  

If this doesn't mobilize every woman, both politically active and not, that cares at all about their own self-preservation, I don't know what will.  This should be a massive groundswell for Dems.

[hobbes2702 13,049]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

They're hoping for violence. It would help them justify a brutal crackdown when they retake the White House.

Wildcat gets it. They aren’t here for getting while it’s good. They are here for taking permanently

[Chuckie Finster 22,702]

4 minutes ago, Dutch said:

I wonder if Thomas also wants to reconsider Loving v Virginia? 

There isn't a better summary of the Conservative mindset than Thomas omitting Loving from his list.  "Obviously this one freedom that affects me should be protected, but fuck all the rest of y'all."

[Js1 85,447]

1 minute ago, Dr. Teeth said:

This is the equivalent of liberals winning on Twitter and not at the voting booth. When are we going to stop thinking being clever is the solution. 

Yeah but Hillary was awful. Feel the Bern! Vote for Stein, that’ll show them! 

[wildcat09 29,356]

I really don't know what to make of the fact that Breyer wrote the sole dissent.

[hookemATL 11,800]

On the positive side, my holdings in wire coat hanger futures are sure to increase greatly in value. (Sorry for the crude joke, just violently angry right now). 
 

fuck all this shit.  Cruelty is truly the point of everything these treasonous pieces of shit do. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Dark day for America, I can’t believe they did it.  Shameful jurisprudence considering the amount of lying and cheating it took to build this farce of a Supreme Court. 

[Gap03 3,308]

25 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.

 

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If this doesn't mobilize every woman, both politically active and not, that cares at all about their own self-preservation, I don't know what will.  This should be a massive groundswell for Dems.

It won’t. White women in the suburbs don’t care about this. They care about gas prices, security, and whatever scares them that week. SCOTUS just overturned something that has the support of a majority of Americans. Because Rs know that they control a lot of the situation now. And in November will control more. SCOTUS was the prize. That’s why they celebrated Trump so much. Other than the racism. That’s why McConnell did what he did for some many years. And Dems let him. They have zero spine. And that won’t change anytime soon. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Dr. Teeth

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Probably would be a good idea for Dems to start worrying about voting rights 30 years ago. 

Dems are terrible at playing politics.  It’s kind of a big problem   

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,694]

1 minute ago, Dr. Teeth said:

It won’t. White women in the suburbs don’t care about this. They care about gas prices, security, and whatever scares them that week. SCOTUS just overturned something that has the support of a majority of Americans. Because Rs know that they control a lot of the situation now. And in November will control more. SCOTUS was the prize. That’s why they celebrated Trump so much. Other than the racism. That’s why McConnell did what he did for some many years. And Dems let him. They have zero spine. And that won’t change anytime soon. 

I really thought that Rs would never do this because they were using it as a tool to keep their dumbshit voters coming out to vote.  Now that they got their way, what is the plan?  Is it really a Handmaid's Tale version of reality?  I just can't believe that.

[Js1 85,447]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really thought that Rs would never do this because they were using it as a tool to keep their dumbshit voters coming out to vote.  Now that they got their way, what is the plan?  Is it really a Handmaid's Tale version of reality?  I just can't believe that.

Pick a new issue - gay marriage probably. Gays are not mentioned in the constitution, so time for that to go away 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Js1

[Biff Tannen 45,694]

Just now, Js1 said:

Pick a new issue - gay marriage probably. 

And we just keep oppressing people until we are back to a white male dominated theocracy?  Oh...well that actually makes sense now.  

[Aqua Buddha 14,599]

Just now, Js1 said:

Pick a new issue - gay marriage probably. 

Yes, all of these "single issue voters" will magically find another issue to cling to that is conveniently Republican.

[Mo Horn 8,852]

4 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

On the positive side, my holdings in wire coat hanger futures are sure to increase greatly in value. (Sorry for the crude joke, just violently angry right now). 
 

fuck all this shit.  Cruelty is truly the point of everything these treasonous pieces of shit do. 

I can think of no other reason. There is true hatred for people who this, and future rulings, will affect. There is no other rationale explanation. 

[wildcat09 29,356]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really thought that Rs would never do this because they were using it as a tool to keep their dumbshit voters coming out to vote.  Now that they got their way, what is the plan?  Is it really a Handmaid's Tale version of reality?  I just can't believe that.

No, that's not cruel enough to enough of their enemies for them. They want full apartheid, in which only conservative white men have political and economic power. The rest of us will either serve them or be purged.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

30 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

[Gourmand 7,774]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really thought that Rs would never do this because they were using it as a tool to keep their dumbshit voters coming out to vote.  Now that they got their way, what is the plan?  Is it really a Handmaid's Tale version of reality?  I just can't believe that.

They are coming for all regulatory powers of the federal government. That is their big agenda now that they have hijacked the Supreme Court. 

[Jive Turkey 12,626]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This should be a massive groundswell for Dems.

they absolutely, categorically will fuck it up.  Pelosi and Schumer could botch a winning lottery ticket.

[Mdhorn 5,974]

What the hell happened to states rights in both this and the concealed gun ruling?  Thought we were all about letting states decide?  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hey, it was only 5-4!

It was 6-3

[F250 28,791]

36 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Bring ruled by 6 unelected Christian fascists is so fun!

When religion informs these kind of decisions.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

Neither is concealed carry, but here we are.

 

 

[Firemans4Horn 18,117]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If this doesn't mobilize every woman, both politically active and not, that cares at all about their own self-preservation, I don't know what will.  This should be a massive groundswell for Dems.

Except we’ll get something like this:

 

“This is a sad day for indigenous birthing persons, LGBTQIAXZY#, and we want a strong Republican Party to come back”

-Pelosi and Schumer joint statement

 

CCBC08AC-64B4-464D-9FE9-C4D0B54B048C.webp

Edited June 24, 2022 by Firemans4Horn

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Neither is concealed carry, but here we are.

 

 

They did seem to only read one part of the sentence in that document. 

[Goofyboy 3,293]

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

So much for those blessing of Liberty that’s in the Constitution. Just pick and choose what you want to follow. You really are a good little christian.

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

1 minute ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Except we’ll get something like this:

 

“This is a sad day for indigenous birthing persons, LGBTQIAXZY#, and we want a strong Republican Party to come back”

-Pelosi and Schumer joint statement

 

 

CCBC08AC-64B4-464D-9FE9-C4D0B54B048C.webp 500.43 kB · 3 downloads

Those two need to go to regain power. That is a must. 

[Goofyboy 3,293]

Better start downloading all the porn you can. Also, stock up on sex toys. No more privacy.

['stache 21,825]

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

they absolutely, categorically will fuck it up.  Pelosi and Schumer could botch a winning lottery ticket.

Stahp. You can't politic around hateful assholes and idiots. You can do a poll that 70% of people support abortion rights, but the republicans in that poll will still vote republican, because two moms kissed in a Pixar movie and transgenders are winning all the trophies. 

Nothing. Fucking. Matters. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,702]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was 6-3

As usual, you are incorrect here.

[DaysOff 7,959]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If this doesn't mobilize every woman, both politically active and not, that cares at all about their own self-preservation, I don't know what will.  This should be a massive groundswell for Dems.

 

Lol. Do you even Katy and Woodlands bro

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

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."

 

 

[David Dennison 18,938]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

So is the three-fifths clause.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

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.

[David Dennison 18,938]

Also, I would like Johnny Sack to point out where corporate personhood is in the Constitution.

[jimmyjazz 45,998]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

It absolutely is not, you worthless trolling shitbag.

[Asithappens 974]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

It won’t. White women in the suburbs don’t care about this. They care about gas prices, security, and whatever scares them that week. SCOTUS just overturned something that has the support of a majority of Americans. Because Rs know that they control a lot of the situation now. And in November will control more. SCOTUS was the prize. That’s why they celebrated Trump so much. Other than the racism. That’s why McConnell did what he did for some many years. And Dems let him. They have zero spine. And that won’t change anytime soon. 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Jive Turkey 12,626]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So is the three-fifths clause.

that'll be back on the table.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

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!

[Chuckie Finster 22,702]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

6-3 on judgment that MS law was constitutional.

5-4 on Roe.

Now let's put on our thinking caps for a moment and think about which decision was being referred to in his statement.

['stache 21,825]

Just now, Asithappens said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

They don't care about this or anything else that matters. You see, those women who need abortions are all whores. That's the Karen mindset. This changes nothing for them.

[Chuckie Finster 22,702]

Just now, Asithappens said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

White women care, but then Tucker will tell them that there's an underground legion of Democrats that are imprisoning preschoolers in the sewer system or some shit and they'll BOTH SIDES this shit and pull the red lever as always.

[TexasHooch 5,122]

I'm generally a States Rights kind of guy, but this statement speaks to me:

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

25 minutes ago, Dutch said:

I wonder if Thomas also wants to reconsider Loving v Virginia? 

Well, it's not an explicit right guaranteed by the Constitution and there's no longstanding tradition, sooo....

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

You must have missed the Virginia elections. 

[David Dennison 18,938]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 It was.  Until the 14th amendment was ratified.

Maybe try for an abortion right amendment.

Good luck!

Where is the corporate personhood clause in the Constitution? 

[Brisketexan 105,164]

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."
 
 

Do you agree with Thomas’s dissent? Yes or no?

[jimmyjazz 45,998]

If we just consider Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, we're talking about ~ 46% of Americans.  Most of them could be expected to lean in favor of today's ruling.  Obviously not all, because polling tells us 2/3 of Americans support Roe V Wade but I remain skeptical that there will be a distaff wave of angry voters come November.

[mdmost 43,010]

Next up is gay marriage, same sex unions, and contraception. If you don't believe me, read it from the utter piece of shit himself.

Quote

In Justice Thomas' opinion statement, he wrote that the Supreme Court should "reconsider the rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage."