The Supremes

[DixonHur 11358]

Just now, JBJ said:

Yes.  How is it not?  If it's not a moral imposition, what type is it?

So you're going to answer a question with a question?  

Explain how it's a moral imposition?  There are lots of things that that can't be legislated, are they all moral impositions?

[Gatorubet 30286]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to any degree of bodily autonomy?

God told me I can have JBJ’s kidney whether he agrees or not.   I have more votes, so it’s mine.   Fuck this body autonomy thing. 

[Firemans4Horn 18119]

What fucking losers. It’s like it’s ingrained in their losery DNA.

[Gap03 3310]

36 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Gap03

[wildcat09 29376]

Y'all notice JBJ thinks a decision prohibiting a legislature from prohibiting something is an imposition on the legislature but a legislature prohibiting a woman from doing something that might be necessary to save her life is in fact no imposition at all.  That's because he thinks gerrymandered legislatures disproportionately comprised of conservative white men is more human than any woman is.

[bolverk 29708]

 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

27 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Someone should have aborted you 

It wasn’t for lack of effort, I’m sure.  

[DDD Dad 14346]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

They say God now allows shrimp po’ boys and crawfish etouffee and Southern Baptist third marriages ‘cause Leviticus was changed, but the hate me some homos is still a thing.  

I can’t find it in my Red Rule Bible, but I’m assured that GOP Jesus approves. 

Obligatory:

 

[JBJ 3664]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you're going to answer a question with a question?  

Explain how it's a moral imposition?  There are lots of things that that can't be legislated, are they all moral impositions?

Most laws are moral impositions.  Some are normative without being moral: driving on the right side of the road vs the left.

[hayden_horn 11365]

46 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Brazen, conscienceless dishonesty is the GQP norm. Standard Operational Procedure

yeah, except they weren't being dishonest. they were being clever enough to end around the democrats. nothing they said indicated that they weren't primed and ready to overturn the precedent. just that the precedent exists. 

it did.

now it doesn't.

i want to think this would backfire on republicans, but somehow, they've managed to convinced a large number of voters to vote against their best interests. they will continue to have success in this, because americans are stupid. also because the democrats are stupid. everyone is stupid.

fuck. i hope that some kind of movement comes from this, but all we'll see on tv are the freaks on both sides. and people will calcify in their decisions.

i will say that as someone calcified in my fucking decisions now. i'll never vote for a republican ever again in my lifetime. i'll actively work against them. fuck them.

[6th Street 6484]

Next thing you know they're going to ban pulling out 

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, 6th Street said:

Next thing you know they're going to ban pulling out 

Soaking is still okay, right?  Asking for all the Mormons.

[Buzzrock 14936]

Someone should have aborted you 

What a stupid fucking moron you are

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t come here any more.

[Chad Fuck 17741]

2 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

I just can't wrap my mind around how you can be against abortion and contraception.  One prevents the other.  That's how it works.  That's it's entire selling point.  

Let me help...

[DixonHur 11358]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Most laws are moral impositions.  Some are normative without being moral: driving on the right side of the road vs the left.

So who's morals are to be considered?  Only a specific brand of Christian morals?

Edited June 24, 2022 by DixonHur

[washparkhorn 9939]

The roadmap for future action by our religious clerics:

[Longhorn_Fan68 33886]

27 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yes.  How is it not?  If it's not a moral imposition, what type is it?

healthcare. next question.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I sympathize with the Bill Hicks view on abortion.  “pro-life” people generally suck. 

[David Dennison 18944]

54 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

Freedom is a moral imposition? 

 

[hobbes2702 13054]

6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t come here any more.

 

 

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

[David Dennison 18944]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

BUT MUH BABIES!!!!

[wildcat09 29376]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

Buzzrock was really upset about vaccine mandates but is fine with criminalizing abortion.

[David Dennison 18944]

37 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

Loving prevents legislatures from making certain policy decisions on interracial marriage.

You down with overturning Loving?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

You're just rightfully upset and lashing out at the wrong people.

I can't help you.  You woke up ready to be mad at the Dems for something the GOP/unelected SCOTUS did.  A lot of y'all wake up every day ready to be mad at the party trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit while the far right keeps lighting the kitchen on fire. 

Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected?  I don't really understand that critique.  Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

I never want to hear a conservative use the phrase “activist judge” ever again. 

[JBJ 3664]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So who's morals are to be considered?  Only Christian?

No, but I am a Christian for full disclosure.

Don't think everyone needs the same morals to having a functioning society and don't even think that 50%+ imposing unwanted policy creates a good society.

[hobbes2702 13054]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected?  I don't really understand that critique.  Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.

Elected officials are definitely who I want telling my partner and I whether or not we can have a child since we are now going to outlaw IVF. Totes cool

[David Dennison 18944]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected?  I don't really understand that critique.  Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.

Actually, it's still in the hands of women. 

[JBJ 3664]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Loving prevents legislatures from making certain policy decisions on interracial marriage.

You down with overturning Loving?

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

[David Dennison 18944]

Just now, JBJ said:

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

So was Roe.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

[RomaVicta 29967]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

How do you expect them to legislate this with the filibuster?  Dems had one brief filibuster proof majority and were kinda focused on saving us from a giant recession and then the ACA.  And then Ted Kennedy died. 

No one foresaw this in that brief 2009-2010 window when there was time to codify it into law with a Democratic House and 60-vote Senate - everything was still semi-normal.  Then the House was lost, then the Senate was lost and then a guy who lost the popular vote got to appoint 3 judges because Mitch McConnell blew up the Senate. 

You expected them to...idk, see a dozen years into the future?  Maybe they would have also seen that Trump was going to be elected and tried to stop it with their all-knowing minds.  They aren't Doctor Strange.

I kind of don't give a shit about the nuts and bolts of abortion legislation. There is a bigger picture than finding people on the right side of an issue and excoriating them for being incompetent. For one, the anti-liberty/women are chattel side of the issue is the real fucking problem in this equation.

Since the Roe decision, Congress has not tackled the abortion issue for fear of losing votes. With abortion legal, they took the politicians' way out and let it all hang on the court. I'm not sure abortion was even a partisan issue way back then. It didn't fit either party's identity until Ronald Reagan married Jerry Falwell.

Ideally, instead of relying on a court decision to determine the law, persons for abortion rights would have passed legislation making it law.

Again, the chess match isn't really important right now. The looming theocracy pounding pregnant women, homosexuals, transexuals, persons of color, and persons whom have moved here is what has me sick today.  Okay, the Dems aren't working out? Change the Dems. Vote in state elections to correct gerrymandering. Fill the streets. Have a general strike.

Shit's going down. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

 

Just now, David Dennison said:

So was Roe.

first they came for the wombs, but i did nothing, because i didn't have a womb.

just wait. you're on the list, buddy.

the republican party does not operate through any other mechanism than opposition. 

eventually, they'll oppose yours and clarence's marriages, and then what? nothing. because you will have already forfeited any right to protest because of your acceptance of some fascism.

[Michael Knight 12991]

2 hours ago, Keef said:

There was no urgency until McConnell broke the game when Scalia died.  

Even then the Supreme Court was viewed as the most stable institution that respected things like precedent not full of shitty radicals. Scalia was a piece of shit but he knew and respected the law and back then Thomas was still asleep. Alito wrote the majority opinion as cover for Kav Barret and Gorsuch

[JBJ 3664]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

Thomas' method of judicial interpretation is untenable.  Maybe it could be argued that he and Sotomayor help to balance the court with a little bit of nonsense each way  to at least challenge 8-1 decisions, but I'd prefer a court ranging between Breyer and Scalia.

[Gatorubet 30286]

19 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No, but I am a Christian for full disclosure.

No, you likely are not.  Far more likely you simply belong to the large group in America who has hi-jacked the label and applied it to their particular hypocritical brand of hateful dumbfuckery. 

I mean, for full disclosure. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Gatorubet

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

41 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Depends on how you go about eating the dicks, really.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

He could easily vote to overturn it, while clarifying that all marriages that were legal at the time of the ceremony are still legal.

['stache 21836]

29 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The roadmap for future action by our religious clerics:

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

[David Dennison 18944]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

There's the rub, coming to a SCOTUS near you.

[South Austin 52563]

Arch Manning will get Roe reinstated.

[Gap03 3310]

5 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

He could easily vote to overturn it, while clarifying that all marriages that were legal at the time of the ceremony are still legal.

Nahh -  Clarence seems like one of those self-loathing types, a real-life Clayton Bigsby of sorts ...

['stache 21836]

I'm legitimately curious how many charities are opening today that will fundraise and pay for people in red states to travel to regular states for this type of medical care. I'm sure there are plenty and that might restore a tiny bit of hope for humanity for me.

[JBJ 3664]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

Both.

And fake washpark isn't wrong.  Landmark substantive due process cases are often overturned - at least compared to the low chance any case gets overturned.  It's often the avenue bad judges can use to enact policy preferences. Minimum wages laws used to be illegal due to a SDP case.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[DixonHur 11358]

25 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No, but I am a Christian for full disclosure.

Don't think everyone needs the same morals to having a functioning society and don't even think that 50%+ imposing unwanted policy creates a good society.

Good, so you are pro-choice and think abortion should be legal but just disagreed with how Roe was adjudicated?  You'd be fine with abortion rights under the 1st Amendment, right?

Because otherwise you're infringing on the moral rights of over 80% of Jews, and over half the Muslims and Christians in the US.

 

[gmr548 16600]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

[David Dennison 18944]

 

[TexasHooch 5136]

45 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Elected officials are definitely who I want telling my partner and I whether or not we can have a child since we are now going to outlaw IVF. Totes cool

So I've been thinking about this because I know somebody who is staunchly pro-life (It becomes a protected life at conception) but has also gone through IVF multiple times- ultimately successful after many failures. 

While I don't think that it's neccessarily contradictory to be both Pro-Life and Pro IVF, it does get sticky doesn't it?  If you agree, as this person does, that an embryo is a person, doesn't that have serious implications to the process of IVF, and the ethics a procedure in which embryos are often discarded? To put it anonter way, If you believe that an embryo is a person, wouldn't you have to either have to restrict IVF, or somehow draw a distinction between "a person"  in a petri dish and one in a womb?

Edited June 24, 2022 by TexasHooch

[JBJ 3664]

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Good, so you are pro-choice and think abortion should be legal but just disagreed with how Roe was adjudicated?  You'd be fine with abortion rights under the 1st Amendment, right?

I think there is some constitutional restriction on abortion and some constitutional allowance on abortion.  I wish I had a more precise answer to this, but I don't know and often go back and forth (over years, not just sittingnhere now) attempting to create a brightline response.

Roe was bad, but not 1A either.  SDP is the appropriate vehicle.  I don't think there's a fundamental right to an abortion wholesale, but there's a fundamental right to some degree of bodily autonomy at an early enough stage in the pregnancy.  I think there’s a fundamental right for a fetus at some stage to not be terminated as well.  Both have some degree of protection.   And lawmakers have some room in the middle to work.  I don't exactly trust legislatures to nail it perfectly, but I'd rather see them try and fail individually in court than SCOTUS to come hot out of the gates with universal standards.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[cattail 112]

 

There is a greater than zero percent chance that Paxton has paid for an abortion