Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 32796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40544
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #325 on: June 24, 2022, 10:25:06 PM »
Well, sys, I'd like you to stop being so contrarian with your "I'm just asking questions" schtick about how (one particular of six listed) marginalized groups might be disproportionately impacted by new state laws expected to or already existing in a majority of states designed to make abortions difficult or impossible. Is it that inscrutable for you to understand? I doubt it, because you're a sharp guy.

the eff are you talking about?
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21932
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #326 on: June 24, 2022, 10:25:59 PM »
Dax is going to be envious as hell that he didn't whatabout the ACLU tweet.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37138
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #327 on: June 24, 2022, 10:35:06 PM »
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that Roe could be codified Federally. This would extend the life of existing clinics, but otherwise it would be worthless, because the republicans control government at least once per decade and businesses can't open with that kind of uncertainty.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 21651
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #328 on: June 24, 2022, 10:38:56 PM »
Well, sys, I'd like you to stop being so contrarian with your "I'm just asking questions" schtick about how (one particular of six listed) marginalized groups might be disproportionately impacted by new state laws expected to or already existing in a majority of states designed to make abortions difficult or impossible. Is it that inscrutable for you to understand? I doubt it, because you're a sharp guy.

the eff are you talking about?

I'm not sure what's unclear, other than that I should have said "too" before "inscrutable." My bad on that. What is confusing to you about my post?

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40544
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #329 on: June 24, 2022, 10:39:56 PM »
What is confusing to you about my post?

i don't know what the eff you're talking about.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 21651
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #330 on: June 24, 2022, 10:44:02 PM »
What is confusing to you about my post?

i don't know what the eff you're talking about.

Hmm. It appears I melded together yours and _33's posts in my brain. I'm sorry. It's been an emotional, sad, and disappointing day for me. I should probably hang up the cleats for the evening.

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #331 on: June 24, 2022, 10:45:36 PM »
Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #332 on: June 24, 2022, 10:48:52 PM »
Trav from cyclone nation thinks it’s inevitable now. I would mean with his knowledge on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you read? A supreme court justice wrote the same thing.
This
I was just sharing the message for the people asking. My lord


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline _33

  • The Inventor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10153
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #333 on: June 24, 2022, 10:52:17 PM »
What is confusing to you about my post?

i don't know what the eff you're talking about.

Hmm. It appears I melded together yours and _33's posts in my brain. I'm sorry. It's been an emotional, sad, and disappointing day for me. I should probably hang up the cleats for the evening.

Didn’t mean to upset you spracne.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #334 on: June 24, 2022, 10:52:38 PM »
Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re honestly banned for thinking Sky wasn’t NFL material. I never wanted to use this card, but here I am. Sorry my style wasn’t lol’ing at famous dead ppl constantly. You still owe the Myers family an apology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6634
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #335 on: June 24, 2022, 10:53:17 PM »
Oh good, wacky made it. Wacky can you please inquire as to why cfbandy’s cousin has such an insatiable blood lust for killing babies? Maybe wish her luck burning in hell for eternity? After all it’s a cut and dry issue you’re either pro life or hopelessly addicted to murdering babies

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #336 on: June 24, 2022, 10:58:08 PM »
Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re honestly banned for thinking Sky wasn’t NFL material. I never wanted to use this card, but here I am. Sorry my style wasn’t lol’ing at famous dead ppl constantly. You still owe the Myers family an apology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need help, my man. Put down the bottle for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40544
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #337 on: June 24, 2022, 10:59:06 PM »
Hmm. It appears I melded together yours and _33's posts in my brain. I'm sorry. It's been an emotional, sad, and disappointing day for me. I should probably hang up the cleats for the evening.

thanks for the explanation.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #338 on: June 24, 2022, 11:02:15 PM »
Oh good, wacky made it. Wacky can you please inquire as to why cfbandy’s cousin has such an insatiable blood lust for killing babies? Maybe wish her luck burning in hell for eternity? After all it’s a cut and dry issue you’re either pro life or hopelessly addicted to murdering babies
There’s like 1% of these people alive. Get a grip. You honestly don’t give a crap, you’re just crying out loud for nothing. Wear protection and have mutual sex with a partner on birth control. Boom! Problem solved!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #339 on: June 24, 2022, 11:03:59 PM »
Tell us you don’t understand the problem without telling us that you don’t understand the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #340 on: June 24, 2022, 11:05:15 PM »
Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re honestly banned for thinking Sky wasn’t NFL material. I never wanted to use this card, but here I am. Sorry my style wasn’t lol’ing at famous dead ppl constantly. You still owe the Myers family an apology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need help, my man. Put down the bottle for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah. Own the literal L and stop deflecting. You use to celebrate deaths on here and lost a bet and are roaming free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #341 on: June 24, 2022, 11:06:34 PM »
Tell us you don’t understand the problem without telling us that you don’t understand the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You caring about deaths all of a sudden has me on my heels!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6634
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #342 on: June 24, 2022, 11:06:46 PM »
What’s mutual sex?

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #343 on: June 24, 2022, 11:10:25 PM »
What’s mutual sex?
I can’t help you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30535
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #344 on: June 24, 2022, 11:12:52 PM »
The irony of people who fervently want to restrict abortion access to others is they would never adopt the unwanted child.  That’s what I find so abhorrent.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #345 on: June 24, 2022, 11:18:05 PM »
The irony of people who fervently want to restrict abortion access to others is they would never adopt the unwanted child.  That’s what I find so abhorrent.
Most foster parents are right. Literally right. They wanna help people. Dems are too focused on themselves and what the government will do for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline WildcatNkilt

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6934
  • Had the worst birthday ever on Dec. 5th of '98.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #346 on: June 24, 2022, 11:20:47 PM »
The irony of people who fervently want to restrict abortion access to others is they would never adopt the unwanted child.  That’s what I find so abhorrent.
Most foster parents are right. Literally right. They wanna help people. Dems are too focused on themselves and what the government will do for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is very far from accurate.

I highly recommend foster care training.  In Kansas it’s a 12 week course.  KVC does it in our area.
Kansas City Blue Barbecue fan.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22283
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #347 on: June 24, 2022, 11:23:28 PM »
Wacky, leave goEMAW.  It’s bad for you and you’re bad for it. 

How is this fun for you?  Do you actually like arguing with people and making an ass out of yourself here every day for years?


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline _33

  • The Inventor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10153
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #348 on: June 24, 2022, 11:25:51 PM »
The irony of people who fervently want to restrict abortion access to others is they would never adopt the unwanted child.  That’s what I find so abhorrent.

I am pro-life and have fostered and adopted from the foster care system. Several friends of our family have done the same. You’re painting with too broad a brush.

Offline WildcatNkilt

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6934
  • Had the worst birthday ever on Dec. 5th of '98.
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #349 on: June 24, 2022, 11:35:53 PM »
The irony of people who fervently want to restrict abortion access to others is they would never adopt the unwanted child.  That’s what I find so abhorrent.

I am pro-life and have fostered and adopted from the foster care system. Several friends of our family have done the same. You’re painting with too broad a brush.

Too broad of a brush or not, you are aware of the saturated foster care systems and lack of homes, respite care, and sponsors available for kids.  You also know that kids get kicked to the streets at 18, and as they get older they are less likely to get adopted.  How do you see the system working if unwanted pregnancies are forced to go full term?  The system is already volatile and heavily scrutinized. 
Kansas City Blue Barbecue fan.