Supreme Court Cases Thread

[catastrophe]

I have no idea what this sort of lying could be other than purely political in nature.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1540360023217430528

This is a stain on the SC.  And a pretty bad one

Not just the Court. This will reverberate throughout the country and cause immense damage. But yeah. My faith in the institution is shot.

Ive seen common alternatives suggested that they may try to open clinics on tribal land.  Is that even a feasible option?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s crazy to even be in that position, but my understanding would that this is indeed feasible if done on tribal lands. The federal government can pass laws that take precedence over even tribal interests, but I don’t think states can do anything similar (although they probably could, for example, prohibit mailing of abortion pills FROM tribal lands to their states).

[420seriouscat69]

I see Wacky's time off really caused some self-reflection.

Chings is a dunce and only knows how to block me on threads I don’t crap post in. I have access to the PIT and Wacky’s World. I’m just flexing out his muscle that the ban wasn’t about politics and not being kind to the resident longhorn/squawk. Anyways, protect yourselves when having sex. Health class 101.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

Really shitty day for dipshits who don’t know how to have sex without getting pregnant. RIP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.   We should find a way to fund organizations that help get people the things they need to do that.


Wait.  We don't want to do that either. 

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

Good grief


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIG APPLE CAT]

So spracs is there a path forward to where this decision could be reconsidered? Can they overturn an overturning? Or is Roe now a white elephant gift that has been stolen for the 3rd time? Like would a new case have to go to the SC, then the SC would have to agree to hear it, and then make an all new decision?

[Spracne]

I see Wacky's time off really caused some self-reflection.

Chings is a dunce and only knows how to block me on threads I don’t crap post in. I have access to the PIT and Wacky’s World. I’m just flexing out his muscle that the ban wasn’t about politics and not being kind to the resident longhorn/squawk. Anyways, protect yourselves when having sex. Health class 101.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wackster, you really think Chings doesn't know how to fully ban you? It was a kindness to you. I'd be careful with that FAFO mentality.

Speaking of, here is Don. Jr. being honest for once. An eerily similar tone:

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1540363211861549058?s=20&t=ui_vhMtiBLIS__tNPZMdKA

[420seriouscat69]

For him to ban me away from normal boards just shows how much of a joke it is. I only crap post down here. Anyways, why do you like the right to kill babies? What did they do to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

So spracs is there a path forward to where this decision could be reconsidered? Can they overturn an overturning? Or is Roe now a white elephant gift that has been stolen for the 3rd time? Like would a new case have to go to the SC, then the SC would have to agree to hear it, and then make an all new decision?

Considering that precedent and discarding stare decisis now mean that the current composition of the Court disagrees with a prior decision, sure it's possible. But we'd need to shuffle some seats, and the Trumpumvirate were just appointed and are relatively young. Then you're hoping that one of Alito or Thomas dies before the next Pub Prez. If I were John Roberts, I'd step down to allow Biden to appoint my successor. He hates this and has lost control over the Court.

Let's pack that MF'er, say I.

[catastrophe]

Obviously SCOTUS could overturn the overturning. That’s exactly why Spracs is upset. Precedent means basically nothing anymore if it’s not codified in the constitution or a (constitutional) statute.

[CHONGS]

For him to ban me away from normal boards just shows how much of a joke it is. I only crap post down here.

The "Pet Peeves" thread was not in the Pit.

[catastrophe]

I had forgotten about the court packing option. No longer seems so crazy.

[Spracne]

For him to ban me away from normal boards just shows how much of a joke it is. I only crap post down here. Anyways, why do you like the right to kill babies? What did they do to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because I have empathy for women I've never met who might find themselves in any number of unfortunate situations, and I don't believe the government should be in the exam room when a doctor and a patient are discussing a very difficult decision. I seem to recall you shitposting vociferously on other boards, including the Pet Peeve's thread. Anyway, I had resolved to ignore you (while not putting you on ignore), so that's my plan going forward.

[420seriouscat69]

For him to ban me away from normal boards just shows how much of a joke it is. I only crap post down here.

The "Pet Peeves" thread was not in the Pit.

Spracs took a jab at me for using the term “wifey” in another thread and decided to come at me there. Follow the posts and you can see it. That’s why I gave him so much crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

For him to ban me away from normal boards just shows how much of a joke it is. I only crap post down here. Anyways, why do you like the right to kill babies? What did they do to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because I have empathy for women I've never met who might find themselves in any number of unfortunate situations, and I don't believe the government should be in the exam room when a doctor and a patient are discussing a very difficult decision. I seem to recall you shitposting vociferously on other boards, including the Pet Peeve's thread. Anyway, I had resolved to ignore you (while not putting you on ignore), so that's my plan going forward.

Godspeed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

I literally said “wifey” got me a gift card in the glasses thread and he took it straight to my pet peeve’s thread, trying to shame married people lingo. Sorry if I felt the cocky son of a bitch needed a lesson. I also remember you defending that loose cannon for calling my wife a fat bitch. So whatever…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

*Sundancekid. You were absolutely fine with him crap posting and calling posters wives fat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catastrophe]

My dream scenario: Biden lines up however many new justices (5? 6? 8?) to be promptly installed and overturn the overturn of Roe. Congress *rabble* *rabble* *rabbles* and they land at approving a constitutional amendment that both codifies Roe and sets the number of supreme court justices at 9.

Seems like a stretch but packing the court with a bunch of lackeys could threaten not only to reinstate Roe but roll back gun laws and others. Under this "compromise" conservatives would still have a significant edge on the court for years to come.

[_33]

Question:  I've seen twice people say that the overturning of Roe v Wade will disproportionally effect the LGBTQ+ community.  How is that possible?  It seems that it couldn't possibly be true.

[Kat Kid]

Question:  I've seen twice people say that the overturning of Roe v Wade will disproportionally effect the LGBTQ+ community.  How is that possible?  It seems that it couldn't possibly be true.

I don’t think anyone said that, but if they did that would be weird. What you may have heard is someone say that this is a clear threat to gay marriage because they may have the votes for that and they don’t seem to care about how they are perceived.

[420seriouscat69]

Trav from cyclone nation thinks it’s inevitable now. I would mean with his knowledge on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

Question:  I've seen twice people say that the overturning of Roe v Wade will disproportionally effect the LGBTQ+ community.  How is that possible?  It seems that it couldn't possibly be true.

I don’t think anyone said that, but if they did that would be weird. What you may have heard is someone say that this is a clear threat to gay marriage because they may have the votes for that and they don’t seem to care about how they are perceived.

It's more than that. The two (and many other rights issues) have the same basis.

If we're still skeptical, we should probably ask ourselves if in the past we would have thought that overturning Roe could possibly happen.

[Spracne]

My dream scenario: Biden lines up however many new justices (5? 6? 8?) to be promptly installed and overturn the overturn of Roe. Congress *rabble* *rabble* *rabbles* and they land at approving a constitutional amendment that both codifies Roe and sets the number of supreme court justices at 9.

Seems like a stretch but packing the court with a bunch of lackeys could threaten not only to reinstate Roe but roll back gun laws and others. Under this "compromise" conservatives would still have a significant edge on the court for years to come.

Quite the stretch, indeed. Multiple things would need to happen, including abolishing the legislative filibuster as a preliminary matter. Then, you have to hope that a super-majority of both chambers get sufficiently scared. Then, you have to get 75%+ of state legislatures to also feel sufficiently scared.

Alternatively, the easier path would be to pull a "switch in time that saved nine" a la FDR by sternly threatening it, which might convince one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch (more likely, imo) to stop being such chuds.

[steve dave]

Question:  I've seen twice people say that the overturning of Roe v Wade will disproportionally effect the LGBTQ+ community.  How is that possible?  It seems that it couldn't possibly be true.

You saw that twice where? Here?

[_33]

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866

[Spracne]

Question:  I've seen twice people say that the overturning of Roe v Wade will disproportionally effect the LGBTQ+ community.  How is that possible?  It seems that it couldn't possibly be true.

I don’t think anyone said that, but if they did that would be weird. What you may have heard is someone say that this is a clear threat to gay marriage because they may have the votes for that and they don’t seem to care about how they are perceived.

Yeah, I assume it was a reference to Thomas's not-so-subtle Easter Eggs regarding Lawrence and Obergefell. Kennedy (the architect of those decisions) is gone, and Roberts is powerless to stop the Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett block, as we've just seen.

[Spracne]

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866

Oh, so marginalized groups generally? Yeah, that makes sense.