The Supremes

[Jive Turkey 12594]

This fucking aggy/beard:

 

[David Crockett 267]

2 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Slavery is also a states right. It should go back to the states as well. Best product for a capitalist is slave labor.

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

[Jive Turkey 12594]

Narrator: the states will not provide “support.”

[DDD Dad 14329]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Is the hobbies forum the place where people make arguments based on calm, rational thought and reason in lieu of simply emoting?

Yep.  Definitely Chrispy/Donkey/etc.

I guess @immamac's IP ban didn't stick.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

6 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?

 

Can you in regards to guns? 

[DDD Dad 14329]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think our system is terribly good at producing lawmakers that reflect their constituencies. I'm not convinced it's a great thing at times.

I think our system is horrendously effective at producing constituencies that reflect their representative.  In case you haven't been paying attention, we don't elect our representatives, they choose their districts.

[David Dennison 18851]

3 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

Where is corporate personhood found in the Constitution?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

Can you in regards to guns? 

beat me to it. 

[A-Tex Devil 2446]

By the way, anyone that doesn’t think the conservative justices are heavily lobbied and wined and dined for results real time only need to remember where the fuck Scalia was when he died.  

[David Crockett 267]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Looks like we have a new troll.  Who's sock is this? (sounds a lot like Animal/tobacco product)

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]."

 

You don't even know my stance on abortion.  It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling.  Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

[DDD Dad 14329]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't know, I say we neg him into Bolivian and let gawd sort it out

[DDD Dad 14329]

Just now, David Crockett said:

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]."

 

You don't even know my stance on abortion.  It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling.  Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

I don't care what your stance is on abortion.

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, David Crockett said:

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]."

 

You don't even know my stance on abortion.  It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling.  Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

So, about that individual right to guns . . . where can one find that in the Constitution?

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

You want to know what infringes on my rights as a United States citizen?  Fucking blue laws in states like TX where I can't buy alcohol on Sundays before noon or at all.  How bout the Supreme Court gets on that one as some of us in this country don't give a fuck that it's the "lords day" so we shouldn't be allowed to buy booze so we can go to church.  No offense to those of you that are nice Christians on this board but the fucking religious right (which is behind this push to end Roe V Wade) are the worst fucking humans on the face of this Earth.   

[David Crockett 267]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I don't care what your stance is on abortion.

Nor should you.

[DDD Dad 14329]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So, about that individual right to guns . . . where can one find that in the Constitution?

It's in the penumbra.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

5 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

Via an amendment and a Civil War if you're making an apples to apples to analogy. 

[DDD Dad 14329]

Just now, David Crockett said:

Nor should you.

Then why did you bring it up?  Wait.  Never mind.  Don't answer that. 

[Valmy77 13225]

13 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

Sure but that required the overwhelming majority of the states that were in favor of slavery to temporarily leave the Union. Without that there was a zero chance of that happening and even in the event it was kind of a close deal in the House. It was a total fluke unlikely to ever be repeated for an important issue. The only exception I can think of is the 24th Amendment.

Further I think passing an amendment to state the right of the sky to be blue would be very difficult under the current political disfunction, nevermind it being a contentious issue.

So kind of important things to point out if we are going to be talking about facts.

I personally hoped that we could come together and try to achieve some way of medically preventing unwanted pregnancies or finding a way to remove a fetus from a woman without killing the fetus or something. And maybe we could have if we had used the money wasted by giving it to politicians to do a big pointless political fight to throw people in cages, while also not really stopping abortion, instead.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Valmy77

[Smax 3800]

Stop engaging it

[elfenix 34227]

13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think our system is terribly good at producing lawmakers that reflect their constituencies.

that tends to happen when the  lawmakers get to choose their constituencies. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10230]

Still a lot of arguing regarding the issue of women's rights today going back to an over 200 year old document written by a small gathering of white guys at a time when only white men could vote ...

[DixonHur 11296]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

1. What is a woman doing what she wants with her own body mean to you? 

2. If she takes a drug to be an inhospitable place for a zygote to develop, is that her own body?

3. If she injects poison directly into a fetus, is that her own body?

4. If she refuses to allow doctors to care for her accidentally born alive child, is that her own body?

Not trick questions, trying to understand where you stand.

I'll number your original questions for ease of answering...

1.  It means exactly what it says.  A woman has a right to do anything with her body...including the uterus. 

2. Yes, that is her body.  A zygote is no different than any other parasite, it cannot live without it's host.

3. Yes, see above

4. That's a tricky one.  Based on the way I think you're asking it, no.  The baby is now a separate being.

But in strict terms yes, parents are allowed to refuse medical care for their child in most cases.  For example, perhaps medical care is against their religion.     

[elfenix 34227]

2 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Still a lot of arguing regarding the issue of women's rights today going back to an over 200 year old document written by a small gathering of white guys at a time when only white men could vote ...

a bunch of old white male landowners never considered the rights of women, ipso facto it can't possibly be a right! 

-- sam alito, probably

 

 

(i love the part where he says that because it was legal until the quickening at common law that it couldn't have been considered a right.  good detective work there, lou)

Edited June 24, 2022 by elfenix

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where is corporate personhood found in the Constitution?

*Jeopardy theme*

[JBJ 3654]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I think our system is horrendously effective at producing constituencies that reflect their representative.  In case you haven't been paying attention, we don't elect our representatives, they choose their districts.

They also change their public views every 6 months to match what they think will get them re-elected.

I'm not saying gerrymandering doesn't exist.  They can set the battlefront to a certain extent.  But elections have a lot more power than the person selected. The next election is always more powerful than the one that created the current government.

[elfenix 34227]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

They also change their public views every 6 months to match what they think will get them re-elected.

I'm not saying gerrymandering doesn't exist.  They can set the battlefront to a certain extent.  But elections have a lot more power than the person selected. The next election is always more powerful than the one that created the current government.

and 95% of them the result is set in stone once the primary is done. and those primaries are 99.9% set in stone if there's an incumbent.  otherwise, they get decided by the crazy people who vote in primaries.   what a fantastic system we've come up with.

Edited June 24, 2022 by elfenix

[Valmy77 13225]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

But in strict terms yes, parents are allowed to refuse medical care for their child in most cases.  For example, perhaps medical care is against their religion.     

Like all those Jehovah's Witness kids who needed blood transfusions.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

 

[David Crockett 267]

2 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Sure but that required the overwhelming majority of the states that were in favor of slavery to temporarily leave the Union. Without that there was a zero chance of that happening and even in the event it was kind of a close deal in the House. It was a total fluke unlikely to ever be repeated for an important issue.

Further I think passing an amendment to state the right of the sky to be blue would be very difficult under the current political disfunction, nevermind it being a contentious issue.

So kind of important things to point out if we are going to be talking about facts.

I personally hoped that we could come together and try to achieve some way of medically preventing unwanted pregnancies or finding a way to remove a fetus from a woman without killing the fetus or something. And maybe we could have if we had used the money wasted by giving it to politicians to do a big pointless political fight to throw people in cages, while also not really stopping abortion, instead.

Thank you for the reasoned argument instead of taking the shortcut of passive aggressive smart ass comments from behind a keyboard.  Much appreciated.

Passing amendments is supposed to be difficult.  Maybe not to the extreme you indicate, but difficult nonetheless.  The reason that's a good thing is because most issues, especially contentious ones, should be handled at a level closest to the people.  Californians decide for Californians, Texans for Texans, and so on.  It's not supposed to be easy for State A to impose their beliefs/values/desires on State B, thus the difficulty in amending the Constitution that covers us all.

As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand the "throw people in cages" reference, but yeah, some sort of solution that makes everyone happy would be ideal.  In the absence of that though, "let the States decide" is the best alternative (because it's the Constitutional alternative).

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

If Davey Crockett and VAPA started a law firm they’d be unstoppable. 

[JBJ 3654]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

and 95% of them the result is set in stone once the primary is done. and those primaries are 99.9% set in stone if there's an incumbent.  otherwise, they get decided by the crazy people who vote in primaries.   what fantastic system we've come up with.

Agree on primaries often being both more powerful and detrimental.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

32 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

Where is the concept of corporate personhood in the Constitution?

[JBJ 3654]

28 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Like all those Jehovah's Witness kids who needed blood transfusions.

They have lost every SCOTUS case they've attempted over this, btw.  They do still win cases at the other levels.  The ones they win tend to be over the efficacy of alternatives (doctors preferred remedy vs parents preferred remedy) and seriousness of the risk requiring the blood transfusion.

When it's necessary to save the child's life or prevent a serious injury, they can't refuse.  Well, they still do refuse, but the government intercedes.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

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

Where is the concept of corporate personhood in the Constitution?

you can keep asking, but you'll never get an answer.

[David Crockett 267]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you can keep asking, but you'll never get an answer.

Because it's a straw man.  If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so.  And I might even agree with it.  Who knows?

Edited June 24, 2022 by David Crockett

[DDD Dad 14329]

31 minutes ago, elfenix said:

and 95% of them the result is set in stone once the primary is done. and those primaries are 99.9% set in stone if there's an incumbent.  otherwise, they get decided by the crazy people who vote in primaries.   what a fantastic system we've come up with.

Which is why there is no "middle" ground to be found.  Extreme gerrymandering coupled with voter suppression ensures that compromise on anything of substance is virtually impossible.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you can keep asking, but you'll never get an answer.

I know. It's worthwhile to show the double standard and unfortunately, as Trumpkins have shown us, sheer repetition is a surpringly effective. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

2 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Because it's a straw man.  If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so.  And I might even agree with it.  Who knows?

Not you, apparently. 

[David Crockett 267]

If you're looking to be the recipient of a virtual handjob from your internet friends, then based on what I've seen so far, your current approach of the intellectually shallow drive-by is likely the most effective.  

If you'd like to make your point about about corporate personhood, then by all means make it.

[kevwun 15769]

Dear David Crockett, please post more so we can neg you to Bolivia.

Edited June 24, 2022 by kevwun

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

Just now, kevwun said:

Dear David Crockett, please post more so we can neg you to oblivion.

92 more and counting

[NameAlreadyInUse 5111]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Where is the right to a concealed weapon in the Constitution?

Also, let's not forget the fact that the justification from Alito on that one was that people are just going to ignore the law, so we shouldn't have the law.  Based on what I'm seeing on LinkedIn today, lots of companies are not only going to ignore the law, they are going to aid and abet their female employees to travel for an abortion when necessary.  So why doesn't the same logic hold here?  I mean those two decisions were decided 1 day apart.  

This is not about the rule of law. Alito's back to back opinions remove any doubt.  

[JBJ 3654]

17 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Because it's a straw man.  If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so.  And I might even agree with it.  Who knows?

It's not a strawman, but it's a trick question.  The constitution only has a single amendment concerning individual rights.  Other rights are universal and they are written that way.

I.e. "Congress shall pass no law respecting..."

[DDD Dad 14329]

25 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

And I might even agree with it.  Who knows?

[David Crockett 267]

 

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Dear David Crockett, please post more so we can neg you to Bolivia.

Is that the internet version of a bunch of pussies acting tough?  If that's what brings you satisfaction and gives you a little dopamine hit, then have at it, big guy.  

[kevwun 15769]

Thanks, yes I feel very good about negging an asshole.

[David Crockett 267]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

We'll never know since he appears to be uninterested in making a point, instead choosing to posture in front of his e-friends.  The dynamic here is amusing.  It's not my "house" though, so I have at it.
 

[Js1 85296]

Hypothetically, of course

 

[David Crockett 267]

8 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Thanks, yes I feel very good about negging an asshole.

And I'm an asshole because I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here re: the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade?

I think one could say some of y'all's reaction to someone not falling in line makes YOU an asshole.  Even if that's true, have at it if that's what gets you off.  

It makes no difference to me.  It's the internet.