The Supremes

[tx 3 putt 76158]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm clearly no ConLaw scholar -- let's face it, I'm not a scholar at all -- but this seems a non-starter as race is a protected class.  Sure, it will take all kinds of legal machinations to unwind, and it's possible that the concept of race-based civil rights will be undone, but that seems a stretch.

Talk about galvanizing the vote.  40% of Americans aren't white.  A large chunk of those white Americans (like myself) would be vehemently against this kind of move.  I just don't see it working.

It wasn't a protected class 40 years ago ? Back in 1860 ? 1780 ?

we just had a state limit abortions based on a law from the civil war era 

[tx 3 putt 76158]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

I mean, he's done a damned good job of it.  

make a wish adult 

 

[wildcat09 29187]

It's almost 2024 and there's still people thinking "the GOP won't go THAT far." For fuck's sake.

[CooterBrown 17874]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 let's face it, I'm not a scholar at all -- but this seems a non-starter as race is a protected class.  Sure, it will take all kinds of legal machinations to unwind, and it's possible that the concept of race-based civil rights will be undone, but that seems a stretch.

This chucklefuck is up for the challenge.

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm clearly no ConLaw scholar -- let's face it, I'm not a scholar at all -- but this seems a non-starter as race is a protected class.  Sure, it will take all kinds of legal machinations to unwind, and it's possible that the concept of race-based civil rights will be undone, but that seems a stretch.

Talk about galvanizing the vote.  40% of Americans aren't white.  A large chunk of those white Americans (like myself) would be vehemently against this kind of move.  I just don't see it working.

You’re not doing a great job selling the fear. Remember the accusation that Rs are the ones trading fear for votes… 

[Longhorn94 2427]

Contraception? Wtf I didn't think they have thought this through...

[Dnaguy 11740]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's almost 2024 and there's still people thinking "the GOP won't go THAT far." For fuck's sake.

There is no bottom for the GOP.

There is no hyperbole when discussing their outcomes.

The GOP will do anything to hold onto power and will burn it all down if they have to.

There is no outcome in which the USA survives as true pluralistic representative democracy for all races, genders, religions, and peoples AND the GOP survives.

One has to die for the other to reign. 

My hope is on one.

But my brain tells me it's likely the other.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

15 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

It wasn't a protected class 40 years ago ? Back in 1860 ? 1780 ?

Yes, no and no.

Congress passed a law late last year that protects same sex and interracial marriage, and Biden signed it.  It's the "Respect for Marriage Act".  Could SCOTUS strike it down as unconstitutional?  I mean, maybe?  On what grounds?

Believe me, I get the fear, and I don't put anything past Republicans in terms of what they're willing to try.  I just think this one's a bridge too far.  (One could argue that Roe V Wade was, too, and I don't really disagree.)

[tx 3 putt 76158]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, no and no.

Congress passed a law late last year that protects same sex and interracial marriage, and Biden signed it.  It's the "Respect for Marriage Act".  Could SCOTUS strike it down as unconstitutional?  I mean, maybe?  On what grounds?

Believe me, I get the fear, and I don't put anything past Republicans in terms of what they're willing to try.  I just think this one's a bridge too far.  (One could argue that Roe V Wade was, too, and I don't really disagree.)

all they need is a law pre dating protected classes and then they can claim religious freedom !

 

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17503]

12 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

This chucklefuck is up for the challenge.

 

Look at him shaking his head "no" there.  

[atomheartbevo 89362]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

Contraception? Wtf I didn't think they have thought this through...

The Christian nutters/replacement theory morons think they have thought it through.  Well, they aren't anticipating the voter turnout or the fact that this means minorities would have having more babies as well, but these groups are fucking nuts to begin with.

It wasonly in 1965 that they addressed it, and Clarence Thomas and many Christian nutters have said Griswold is within their sights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[wildcat09 29187]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, no and no.

Congress passed a law late last year that protects same sex and interracial marriage, and Biden signed it.  It's the "Respect for Marriage Act".  Could SCOTUS strike it down as unconstitutional?  I mean, maybe?  On what grounds?

Believe me, I get the fear, and I don't put anything past Republicans in terms of what they're willing to try.  I just think this one's a bridge too far.  (One could argue that Roe V Wade was, too, and I don't really disagree.)

On the grounds that it infringes on other people's religious practice. That's fucking easy. More importantly, you don't need to have a deep knowledge of the law to understand that the "on what grounds" question is the wrong question, because they have the power to say what the law is. 

The law is not magic. Its words are not incantations that prevent Republicans from carrying out their most heinous plans.  It's just words printed on paper. The only actual restraint on what they will do is social pressure: Kavanaugh's fear that his wife's friends will sneer at him, or Roberts' fear that enough liberals will be around to write history and it won't look kindly on him if he drops his pretenses. And at its furthest point, every Republican judge's fear that if they go too far and that an angry mob will burn their house down with them in it (though there are a few of them that really don't seem to give a shit).

Edited December 12, 2023 by wildcat09

[atomheartbevo 89362]

34 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Those who don't study history...

are deliberately trying to repeat it.

[Dnaguy 11740]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

On what grounds?

If it wasn't around at the time of the founding, and there isn't a constitutional amendment strictly allowing or forbidding it, and it infringers on a state's rights OR someone's sincere religious beliefs......

Isn't anything game now?

Also

[jimmyjazz 45513]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

On the grounds that it infringes on other people's religious practice. That's fucking easy. More importantly, you don't need to have a deep knowledge of the law to understand that the "on what grounds" question is the wrong question, because they have the power to say what the law is. 

OK.  Note that this particular law passed 267-157 in the House and 61-36 in the Senate.  So, while not SCOTUS (which is without a doubt the most concerning body in play here) we do have pretty good evidence that this law has moderate bipartisan support.

Again, I get the fear.  That said, you thought Roe V Wade was a political hot potato?  I mean, remanding control of interracial marriage to the states would create tsunamic shockwaves throughout the country.

I'm gonna try to bow out for now, this is a dead end conversation.

[texasdago 7550]

I'm just curious... like, I get it... she's an awful human being but has Clarence Thomas bothered to take a look at what his wife looks like!?

[SKJ 1305]

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm clearly no ConLaw scholar -- let's face it, I'm not a scholar at all -- but this seems a non-starter as race is a protected class.  Sure, it will take all kinds of legal machinations to unwind, and it's possible that the concept of race-based civil rights will be undone, but that seems a stretch.

Talk about galvanizing the vote.  40% of Americans aren't white.  A large chunk of those white Americans (like myself) would be vehemently against this kind of move.  I just don't see it working.

They don't care.  They have solid control over the courts for the next 20 years.  They just don't care.  

They're also elevating themselves above the other "co-equal" branches of government,  and doing it blatantly...

They insist on turning back the clock and will go as far as they can to establish themselves as a politburo

[wildcat09 29187]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK.  Note that this particular law passed 267-157 in the House and 61-36 in the Senate.  So, while not SCOTUS (which is without a doubt the most concerning body in play here) we do have pretty good evidence that this law has moderate bipartisan support.

Again, I get the fear.  That said, you thought Roe V Wade was a political hot potato?  I mean, remanding control of interracial marriage to the states would create tsunamic shockwaves throughout the country.

I'm gonna try to bow out for now, this is a dead end conversation.

You know what the Congressional vote was on the law Shelby v. Holder overturned (without stating what provision of the Constitution the legislation supposedly violated)?

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I mean, remanding control of interracial marriage to the states would create tsunamic shockwaves throughout the country.

And yet Clarence Thomas and various other Republicans have said just that when they talk about dumping Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut - Republicans want to upend our country and our rights.

And Griswold v. Connecticut is not only the basis for married couples to buy and use contraception without government restriction, it's the basis for the following cases:

• Unmarried Americans' right to contraception  (1972)
• Right to abortion (1973)
• Right to contraception for juveniles (1977)
• Right to homosexual relations (2003)
• Right to same-sex marriage (2015)

If Republicans can wipe out Griswold v. Connecticut, they can devastate and criminalize the LBGTQ communities in red states, with the bonus of ditching contraception. They will happily toss Loving vs Virginia into the mix if they can.

[SKJ 1305]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’re not doing a great job selling the fear. Remember the accusation that Rs are the ones trading fear for votes… 

Rs are, and will continue to be the party of fear. They're so afraid of everything.  Progress... minorities... hell... half the rs carry guns daily because they're so scared of everything... imagine being such a pussy that you carry a gun everywhere 

[YGIFS 19449]

I mean to be fair to Crow, if you're gonna have just the one black friend, an originalist Supreme Court Justice who happens to be African American is a really choice decision.  

[tx 3 putt 76158]

Today’s R’s never read freakanomics 

[SKJ 1305]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, no and no.

Congress passed a law late last year that protects same sex and interracial marriage, and Biden signed it.  It's the "Respect for Marriage Act".  Could SCOTUS strike it down as unconstitutional?  I mean, maybe?  On what grounds?

Believe me, I get the fear, and I don't put anything past Republicans in terms of what they're willing to try.  I just think this one's a bridge too far.  (One could argue that Roe V Wade was, too, and I don't really disagree.)

Sheeeeit... just this week during Muldrow Alito's questions were setting up the basis for this, and also being able to end DEI initiatives.... just like Students for Fair Admissions, where they decided that the 14th amendment didn't have anything to do with race textually... and totally ignoring originalism.

They don't issue rulings based on anything but vibes 

[RomaVicta 29756]

13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

So a clerk in a southern state will soon deny an interracial marriage license on religious grounds ?

then once the this corrupt scotus rules in their favor, the state can ban interracial marriage ?

Amid the absolute degenerate hate mongering which I despise, I am a little amused that they see inter-racial marriage as this:

with fairly easily distinguishable "races."

How do they racially characterize the people below?

Anybody wanna guess if the below is inter-racial?

We sending Rashida to jail?

They don't care about the purity of any race but one. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Anybody wanna guess if the below is inter-racial?

That sure looks like Maya Rudoph and Fred Armisen to me, which might be surprising to Paul Thomas Anderson.

[YGIFS 19449]

Wait, Rashida is banging the dude from "Vampire Weekend."  Fuck his frat-douche ass!  I love their music but he doesn't deserve her!  She's on my "can bang with no divorce" list for the love of god! 

Anyway, I'll listen to anybody's racial rants about white supremacy if they can produce a valid 23-and-me DNA test.  So many white people have so little idea how much non-white DNA they have in their gene pool.  And they can't shut the fuck up about how they are descended from this viceroy or barron of this anglo nation or that nordic country.  I sincerely doubt, that any mid-level nobleperson ever thought, "You know what?  Fuck the Alps and my chalet, let's head for Galveston!"  

[Nivek 16807]

YGIFs, we all have our types, but I would suggest tapping on the breaks when the ladies name starts with a Rash.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

Rs are, and will continue to be the party of fear. They're so afraid of everything.  Progress... minorities... hell... half the rs carry guns daily because they're so scared of everything... imagine being such a pussy that you carry a gun everywhere 

Lol. Imagine using one to make a living. 

[YGIFS 19449]

First of all, it's "brakes", not "breaks" in this connotation.  Second, if she has some kinda genital discoloring---it's his fault!  Third, Ms. Jones is a goddamn saint so watch your mouth!  Gorgeous, rich, and hilarious.  What's not to like?  

[miguelito 11204]

[YGIFS 19449]

Yeah, they're African!

[SKJ 1305]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Lol. Imagine using one to make a living. 

It's like being in the military.  You have it when it's time. 

[tx 3 putt 76158]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And yet Clarence Thomas and various other Republicans have said just that when they talk about dumping Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut - Republicans want to upend our country and our rights.

And Griswold v. Connecticut is not only the basis for married couples to buy and use contraception without government restriction, it's the basis for the following cases:

• Unmarried Americans' right to contraception  (1972)
• Right to abortion (1973)
• Right to contraception for juveniles (1977)
• Right to homosexual relations (2003)
• Right to same-sex marriage (2015)

If Republicans can wipe out Griswold v. Connecticut, they can devastate and criminalize the LBGTQ communities in red states, with the bonus of ditching contraception. They will happily toss Loving vs Virginia into the mix if they can.

the mass deportations will distract from lbgtq  shenanigans 

['stache 21743]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've posted it before, and could dig it up again, but there are a handful (3-4) of Supreme Court cases that piggyback off of each other that concern:

• Interracial marriage
• Homosexual relationships/sex
• Birth control
• Abortion

Abortion was the first pin to fall, and Clarence Thomas has talked about the others could quickly follow suit with a chain reaction.

It's fucking nuts, but that's who today's GOP is.

No state is going to ban interracial marriage so that one isn't going to come up other than interviews where racist shitheads reveal themselves. The other two are gonna come up for sure. Obergefell will fall and birth control may become illegal in some states. I have no doubt about either one.

[Brisketexan 104462]

Just now, 'stache said:

No state is going to ban interracial marriage so that one isn't going to come up other than interviews where racist shitheads reveal themselves. The other two are gonna come up for sure. Obergefell will fall and birth control may become illegal in some states. I have no doubt about either one.

I think your ranking is correct.  Obergefell is a dead-man walking, and so is Griswold (and thus, birth control will be banned in some states).  But don't give zero odds to interracial marriages being banned, or at least subject to "approval by the state upon petition of the couple for a good-cause exception" or some shit like that.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

No state is going to ban interracial marriage so that one isn't going to come up other than interviews where racist shitheads reveal themselves. The other two are gonna come up for sure. Obergefell will fall and birth control may become illegal in some states. I have no doubt about either one.

Ban ? Probably not

recognize a legal union ?  Mississippi and Alabama, come on down !

[jimmyjazz 45513]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Ban ? Probably not

recognize a legal union ?  Mississippi and Alabama, come on down !

So how would this work?  How would these currently legal unions be delegitimized? 

Would all married couples need to submit blood samples for DNA testing?  We all know most of us married folk would come back "interracial".  

Would the county clerk get to make the call based on her "eyeball test"?  (hey to the CFP committee)

Would state income tax status subsequently change?  What other effects would fall out?

[tx 3 putt 76158]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So how would this work?  How would these currently legal unions be delegitimized? 

Would all married couples need to submit blood samples for DNA testing?  We all know most of us married folk would come back "interracial".  

Would the county clerk get to make the call based on her "eyeball test"?  (hey to the CFP committee)

Would state income tax status subsequently change?  What other effects would fall out?

its already been done in some of our lifetimes. just dust off sone old laws, sharpen them up some and bam 

1958 virginia … https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_(2016_film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
 

this isnt a new idea 

Edited December 12, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[tx 3 putt 76158]

Trump is issuing an exec order day 1 banning birth right citizenship. Stephen Miller probably has this properly worded and ready to go.

gutting anything else will only take the stroke of his pen. Let the SC say its up to the states

[wildcat09 29187]

Think of all of the shit that has happened in this country in the past few years that was completely unimaginable in 2015.  The idea that there's anything too extreme for modern society for them to try to implement is simply wrong.

This was Iran in the 1970s: 

Afghanistan:

 

A similar transformation happened in Pakistan after 1979 too, and a similar transformation is happening right now in Turkey. Hell, while it was never as progressive as those others, Saudi Arabia used to be more liberal before wahhabist Islam came to power there. The new fundamentalist Islam that grew as a response to modern society in those countries was even more conservative and more regressive than it had ever been in the past. 

Those changes weren't unique to Islam.  Our religious fundamentalists want the same thing here. They don't simply want to return to the days of the 1950s, they want to reshape America into something that makes America in the 1950s look downright communist.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

13 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

its already been done in some of our lifetimes. just dust off sone old laws, sharpen them up some and bam 

1958 virginia … https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_(2016_film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
 

this isnt a new idea 

Wait, so your argument that a unanimous SCOTUS ruling which renders bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional is evidence that we're moving backwards?  That don't make no fucking sense.  COULD the Supreme Court strike down Loving or its basic tenets?  Sure, I guess, but you don't need to go all Brisket on us as if it's already happened.  I don't know if you know this, but different cases are . . . different.

The Venn diagram of abortion and interracial marriage isn't a circle.  You need to show your work and provide legitimate evidence that a majority of SCOTUS is against interracial marriage.  Ironically, one of the most backwards jurists on the court is himself in an interracial marriage.  Either it's a sham marriage or he isn't against the concept.  Of course, that doesn't mean he wouldn't side with that asshat Alito, but it's not written in stone.  Do you really know Roberts and Amy and Donkey Dong Doug's best friend Brett are willing to step to the side of "eh, let's let the states decide"?  I'm not sure of that, at all.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

No argument here, I'm just saying that it’s happened in the past with laws on the books to support it. 

[Satchel 6908]

Dems should really raise hell about Thomas not recusing himself:

https://www.wate.com/hill-politics/senate-democrats-press-thomas-to-recuse-himself-from-trump-immunity-case/#:~:text=Senate Democrats are calling on,he committed while in office.

Senate Democrats are calling on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on former President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.  

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democrats on the panel argue that Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife Ginni was outspoken in support of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.  

“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself,” Durbin said.

[F250 28659]

53 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So how would this work?  How would these currently legal unions be delegitimized? 

Would all married couples need to submit blood samples for DNA testing?  We all know most of us married folk would come back "interracial".  

[tx 3 putt 76158]

6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Dems should really raise hell about Thomas not recusing himself:

https://www.wate.com/hill-politics/senate-democrats-press-thomas-to-recuse-himself-from-trump-immunity-case/#:~:text=Senate Democrats are calling on,he committed while in office.

Senate Democrats are calling on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on former President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.  

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democrats on the panel argue that Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife Ginni was outspoken in support of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.  

“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself,” Durbin said.

Like this will ever happen 😂😂😂

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Thomas did recuse himself from John Eastman's Jan 6 case in October. Eastman was his former clerk, IIRC. Still I don't see him sitting this one out. Who knows, if he sees the writing on the wall of a 7-2 result, maybe he recuses himself so it's 7-1.

 

[YGIFS 19449]

16 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Like this will ever happen 😂😂😂

Well if anybody ever wanted to monetize a website called "Glamor Shots from Hell", here's your starter kit.  Send me my 10% finder's fee and away we go...

[Js1 85056]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Thomas did recuse himself from John Eastman's Jan 6 case in October. Eastman was his former clerk, IIRC. Still I don't see him sitting this one out. Who knows, if he sees the writing on the wall of a 7-2 result, maybe he recuses himself so it's 7-1.

 

Ginny would beat the shit out of him for recusing against Emperor Trump

[Gap03 3248]

Yeah, it's probably a clear violation, but let's think about it for a few more election cycles, and then ask them to pretty-please fix it and then consider those revised maps for a few more cycles ... fuck these cunts.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

Just to be clear here, scotus rubber stamped something they knew was in the wrong ?