Post by: CHONGS on December 01, 2021, 02:01:09 PM
A split off the parent thread:
I think it's inevitable that Roe and Obergefell (among a lot more "liberal" decisions) will be overturned very soon.
And I simply do not think that. In fact, I find the suggestion silly.
I guess we'll see.
I guess so!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-set-dive-mississippi-abortion-case-challenging-roe-v-n1285114
Looks like it might be time to see. Roe is going down.
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 02:23:05 PM
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 02:24:41 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 02:27:32 PM
Actually overturning Roe would come as a surprise to me, but lol at fearing the court would be viewed as a political institution. Like y’all really don’t remember how you got up there?
I think one's perspective shifts a bit when you're part of the brethren. You are one of nine. You care a little bit more about protecting your status and your institution, which means the status quo. You're also aware that, ahem, history has its eyes on you. RBG said it best when she said that nine is a fine number.
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 04:37:37 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 04:48:05 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on December 01, 2021, 04:51:24 PM
Post by: CHONGS on December 01, 2021, 04:52:41 PM
But this world certainly be a much much bigger deal.
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 04:57:29 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
But this world certainly be a much much bigger deal.
Not remotely the same, as there was a dearth of Second Amendment precedent at that time. Fourteenth Amendment precedent relating to abortion rights is firmly entrenched.
Post by: CHONGS on December 01, 2021, 05:10:25 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 05:16:57 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
I'm familiar with both cases. Worth noting that Lawrence extended the reasoning of Roe to apply to private sexual activity. I don't think knocking out Bowers is remotely the same as what's being discussed here. Lawrence only came about because some Houston sheriff and D.A. were dumb enough to actually charge under the sodomy laws. Those laws had been on the books in Texas and other states but were never enforced. And I'm setting aside the fact that Lawrence itself was a total setup, but that's for another day.
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 05:37:35 PM
Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 05:44:37 PM
Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.
Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.
Post by: Kat Kid on December 01, 2021, 05:47:01 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 06:12:15 PM
Abortion access in this country is already pretty difficult for huge swathes of the country. I get that roe is still a big deal but the biggest effects will be felt in states like Wisconsin or Michigan where republicans may really go overboard and find out that there is a big backlash to trying to go all Mississippi and dems win some statehouses. Could be wrong and we end up living in hand maids tale but I don’t think so.
As always, it would be the poor people who suffer. I can afford to send my harem out of state on first-class tickets to get safe, legal abortions. Not everyone is in that position.
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 07:23:21 PM
Non-citizens are able to be extended constitutional protections are they not?Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.
Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 07:33:45 PM
Non-citizens are able to be extended constitutional protections are they not?Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.
Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.
Unless I missed it, I don't think the government (any government, state or federal) is requiring abortions. Am I wrong? I'm not quite sure what constitutional right you think is implicated.
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 07:52:15 PM
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 07:54:03 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 08:09:24 PM
And the question is whether that prohibition is constitutionally mandated or not.
Well, that's some Marbury v. Madison level building-blocks type stuff. Of course it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [federal courts] to say what the [federal] law is." You are aware that the Bill of Rights protects individuals from government action, correct? Your prior response indicated that the injured parties would be state legislators who wished to buck constitutional jurisprudence, despite the fact that the Constitution, as interpreted through the decisions of the Supreme Court, trumps any competing state laws. It has been that way for more than 200 years. I'm not sure why you brought up the constitutional rights of unborn (who lack standing) and then pivoted to the rights of legislators to pass laws that are repugnant to the Constitution, but you're going to have to give me a real argument to work with, here.
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2021, 09:19:13 PM
My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.
I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.
Post by: steve dave on December 01, 2021, 09:53:17 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 01, 2021, 11:45:37 PM
“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?
My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.
I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.
Listen here, sparky, you're insulting all of my hobbies and informed professional interests, and I won't stand for it. And not only that, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. "Capable of repetition yet evading review" as a standing substitute (what I assume you were referring to) is entirely different than a fetus being a proper party to a lawsuit. Understand? No, you probably don't. You simply oppose abortion in your heart. You could have just stated that.
If understanding the history and evolution of the Fourteenth Amendment were a college sport, I would be a 5-star recruit. I will be vindicated in the final analysis. You'll see. You'll all see. (That goes for you too, Chings.)
Post by: Cire on December 02, 2021, 06:07:04 AM
If they throw out roe spracs has to _____________
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on December 02, 2021, 06:31:02 AM
Post by: catastrophe on December 02, 2021, 08:37:25 AM
First of all, the 5 star recruit totally dodged my Dred Scott standing comparo. Is your learned position that that decision was correct until later constitutional amendments?“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?
My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.
I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.
Listen here, sparky, you're insulting all of my hobbies and informed professional interests, and I won't stand for it. And not only that, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. "Capable of repetition yet evading review" as a standing substitute (what I assume you were referring to) is entirely different than a fetus being a proper party to a lawsuit. Understand? No, you probably don't. You simply oppose abortion in your heart. You could have just stated that.
If understanding the history and evolution of the Fourteenth Amendment were a college sport, I would be a 5-star recruit. I will be vindicated in the final analysis. You'll see. You'll all see. (That goes for you too, Chings.)
Second, I was really just indulging your tangent about standing with my comment about Roe. My QUESTION (which you didn’t answer) was whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception existed before Roe, or whether it was created in order to decide that case? It’s certainly not in the constitution in either event.
The point being that standing seems to be another one of those things that can have political undertones as well.
Post by: LickNeckey on December 02, 2021, 11:23:24 AM
position focused
informative
the pit needs more of this!!!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 02, 2021, 11:26:35 AM
Post by: Cire on December 02, 2021, 11:41:19 AM
I'm worried that spracne might get brutalized if the court shows themselves to be partisan hacks who overturn Roe v Wade after all.
There will be pointing and laughing at that rube for sure.
Post by: star seed 7 on December 02, 2021, 12:04:13 PM
Post by: Spracne on December 02, 2021, 03:50:53 PM
First of all, the 5 star recruit totally dodged my Dred Scott standing comparo. Is your learned position that that decision was correct until later constitutional amendments?“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?
My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.
I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.
Listen here, sparky, you're insulting all of my hobbies and informed professional interests, and I won't stand for it. And not only that, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. "Capable of repetition yet evading review" as a standing substitute (what I assume you were referring to) is entirely different than a fetus being a proper party to a lawsuit. Understand? No, you probably don't. You simply oppose abortion in your heart. You could have just stated that.
If understanding the history and evolution of the Fourteenth Amendment were a college sport, I would be a 5-star recruit. I will be vindicated in the final analysis. You'll see. You'll all see. (That goes for you too, Chings.)
Second, I was really just indulging your tangent about standing with my comment about Roe. My QUESTION (which you didn’t answer) was whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception existed before Roe, or whether it was created in order to decide that case? It’s certainly not in the constitution in either event.
The point being that standing seems to be another one of those things that can have political undertones as well.
I don't think making Dred Scott comparisons is useful, considering that slavery was legal at the time. I attempted to address your argument by inferring and then addressing the "capable of repetition yet evading review" test, which was NOT developed specifically for Roe. It also applied to situations in which a government, governmental subunit, agency, etc. would initiate proceedings and then dismiss them (to avoid an unfavorable decision) only to reinitiate proceedings later. Rinse, repeat, because it takes a long time for cases to reach final judgment, as you know.
I'm just endeavoring to inform regarding the current state of constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, and then make an informed prediction about what I think the Court will do. However, I have been dilatory in performing the most important aspect, which is looking closely at the Mississippi law. Is it just that abortions cannot be had after 15 weeks unless medically necessary? That is *roughly* in line with existing precedent, which states that prior to the point of viability, states may not restrict a woman's access to abortion. But after the point of viability, states may reasonably regulate abortion access, except that they cannot restrict abortions that are medically necessary for the health of the mother. If that's all true, then the question becomes: "has medical science advanced to the point that 15 weeks is a reasonable approximation of the point of viability?" That's kind of a tough question for a court to answer. I'm predicting a splintered plurality opinion that won't mean much but will give everyone something to bitch about while not understanding what it all means.
If my very surface-level understanding of the Mississippi law is correct, then the court need not revisit Roe/Casey/etc. in order to uphold the Mississippi law. However, it also seems absurd for the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that 15 weeks is the point of viability. But that would seem to be the gambit happening, here.
Post by: steve dave on December 02, 2021, 05:05:50 PM
Post by: catastrophe on December 02, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Post by: steve dave on December 02, 2021, 06:44:39 PM
Pay me $5,000https://twitter.com/the_law_boy/status/1466568184048218113
Post by: Spracne on December 02, 2021, 09:39:19 PM
SCOTUS doesn’t need to determine the age of viability do they? Can’t it look like an enhanced scrutiny type test to determine whether the state has put forth enough evidence to show it has a compelling interest in regulating abortion after X weeks of gestation?
As I recall (too busy to look it up now), the Court left open the possibility that future medical advancements might reduce the time it takes for a fetus to reach viability. But viability vs. non-viability is the governing standard for determining the standard of review. After viability, states have a "compelling interest" in protecting the unborn, such that laws *might* be narrowly tailored enough to overcome a woman's substantive due process rights as articulated in Roe and Casey (and its progeny). They could rejigger Casey without throwing it out, but as I said, I think a splintered plurality that says nothing but pisses off everyone is where this is headed.
Post by: steve dave on March 25, 2022, 07:43:55 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2022, 01:41:09 PM
Post by: Cire on March 25, 2022, 02:11:37 PM
Post by: CHONGS on May 02, 2022, 08:45:19 PM
A place to talk/yell about Supreme Court cases.https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
A split off the parent thread:I think it's inevitable that Roe and Obergefell (among a lot more "liberal" decisions) will be overturned very soon.
And I simply do not think that. In fact, I find the suggestion silly.I guess we'll see.
I guess so!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-set-dive-mississippi-abortion-case-challenging-roe-v-n1285114
Looks like it might be time to see. Roe is going down.
I guess some might find this surprising.
Post by: Cire on May 02, 2022, 08:48:28 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CHONGS on May 02, 2022, 08:48:32 PM
Post by: CHONGS on May 02, 2022, 08:50:14 PM
Win for DemsI don't think it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PM
Dems running for state legislature seats maybe.Win for DemsI don't think it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also I’m no Supreme Court nut, but I’ve never heard of an opinion leaking. If it’s true, someone clerking for a liberal justice risked their career for a Hail Mary publicity bomb.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 02, 2022, 09:20:22 PM
Dems running for state legislature seats maybe.Win for DemsI don't think it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also I’m no Supreme Court nut, but I’ve never heard of an opinion leaking. If it’s true, someone clerking for a liberal justice risked their career for a Hail Mary publicity bomb.
Good. Glad they did.
Post by: Spracne on May 02, 2022, 10:03:30 PM
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
Post by: chum1 on May 02, 2022, 10:26:35 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2022, 11:06:25 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2022, 11:41:27 PM
I particularly enjoyed today's singular ruling that City of Boston violated 1st amendment rights, a unanimous decision BTW . . . as certain new outlets chose to focus on alleged "conservative" judges, again, SCOTUS was unanimous in their decision.
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?s=20&t=cyVVyk-g8wqMdUSzeIoaug
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 06:20:27 AM
https://twitter.com/jpscasteras/status/1521309036259549185
Post by: Justwin on May 03, 2022, 10:23:54 AM
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges are next.
I just don't see Lawrence v Texas being overturned. I definitely can see Obergefell v Hodges being overturned.
I'm not going to celebrate a Dobbs v Jackson decision until it is official. I don't trust John Roberts in the least and Kavanaugh makes me nervous.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 03, 2022, 12:26:17 PM
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
i got my money on Sotomayor's clerk as the leaker
Post by: star seed 7 on May 03, 2022, 12:31:32 PM
Post by: steve dave on May 03, 2022, 12:59:35 PM
Post by: CHONGS on May 03, 2022, 01:19:27 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2022, 01:59:07 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on May 03, 2022, 02:37:25 PM
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 02:42:08 PM
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see
And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?
Post by: Trim on May 03, 2022, 02:50:47 PM
Then progress to other issues within those two spots to get it down to a good number and that works geographically.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 03:03:39 PM
Seriously, though, don't those abortion pills have a shelf life of 5-6 years? Seems easy enough to just keep one in the medicine cabinet if you live in a state that makes them illegal. No reason to expect people to need back alley anythings in 2022.
No. None of that.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2022, 03:07:40 PM
:dunno:
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 03:36:22 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
:dunno:
Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.
If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 03:43:43 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 04:08:36 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
:dunno:
Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.
If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.
Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.
Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)
I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:
Quote
Of course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.
Post by: cfbandyman on May 03, 2022, 04:16:38 PM
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see
And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?
All 100% valid points, and at this point, yeah, like what would they actually base this on, j/k lolz privacy only matters in certain cases?
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 04:32:55 PM
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:
1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.
Yeah, I guess I still don't actually expect that to happen, but even still, if it does, the back alley unattended consequences of this is going to be interesting to see
And as always, it will be the poor who suffer. I can afford plane tickets and abortion fees for my harem of pelts, but very many cannot. You are also correct that this will spawn a (potentially) dangerous black market for abortion services. I just can't wrap my legal mind around pulling the rug out from generations of people who have organized their lives around the fidelity of the professed law of the land. Seems like a real dick move. And also ... what even is stare decisis at that point?
All 100% valid points, and at this point, yeah, like what would they actually base this on, j/k lolz privacy only matters in certain cases?
Well, the basis appears to be, based on the circulated draft opinion, that the right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in American tradition, because our history shows we have often prohibited it. (This is Alito's fanciful application of the test often used in substantive due process cases.) You know, just like prohibition of miscegenation, school integration, legal discrimination, etc. are deeply rooted in American tradition.
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 04:43:07 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2022, 04:53:35 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
:dunno:
Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.
If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.
I think the danger is probably that if someone takes one of these pills and has excessive bleeding or something, that they wouldn't be able to go to a hospital without going to prison or whatever the penalty in the state would be. Still, it's a pretty safe, readily available option for people who would otherwise be left looking for someone on the black market.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 04:56:06 PM
That's ultimately what conservatives are about, right? Keep doing the same crap we've done in the past.
What I'm saying is that Plessy v. Ferguson held in the late Nineteenth Century that "separate but equal" was cool. When Plessy was overturned in the 1950's in Brown, it was a HUGE deal. That was a unanimous decision, by the way, because the Chief Justice found that disturbing the doctrine of stare decisis was such a big deal that the Court must put forth a united front in doing so. If some substantially similar form of Alito's opinion comes down, this will be the biggest departure from stare decisis since Brown, and in my opinion the most controversial departure ever. It simply does not compute in my brain, and I will have to do a bunch of rewiring up there if it happens.
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 05:25:19 PM
The problem with your first point is you’re starting from the assumption that terminating a pregnancy is a “basic” right. If we’re in a post-Roe world you simply have to let that go.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
:dunno:
Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.
If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.
Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.
Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)
I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:QuoteOf course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.
Yes, I think the circumstances of many Americans could be significantly worse if criminalization of abortions were left to the states. My “free market” point is that we may need to go through some growing pains to arrive at a lasting solution to the abortion debate. SCOTUS Justices aren’t philosopher kings who can just impose solutions to complex problems.
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 05:28:23 PM
That's ultimately what conservatives are about, right? Keep doing the same crap we've done in the past.
What I'm saying is that Plessy v. Ferguson held in the late Nineteenth Century that "separate but equal" was cool. When Plessy was overturned in the 1950's in Brown, it was a HUGE deal. That was a unanimous decision, by the way, because the Chief Justice found that disturbing the doctrine of stare decisis was such a big deal that the Court must put forth a united front in doing so. If some substantially similar form of Alito's opinion comes down, this will be the biggest departure from stare decisis since Brown, and in my opinion the most controversial departure ever. It simply does not compute in my brain, and I will have to do a bunch of rewiring up there if it happens.
I see what you mean. I was more trying to talk crap on his motivations and assuming the legal justification was bullshit.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 05:33:21 PM
The problem with your first point is you’re starting from the assumption that terminating a pregnancy is a “basic” right. If we’re in a post-Roe world you simply have to let that go.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/Really interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
:dunno:
Although it’s definitely not the time to eulogize Roe, I have always disliked the basis for that precedent and feel like rather than always having abortion rights hinging on tight SCOTUS votes, it might be time to let the free market determine how the dust settles.
If “Plan C” really is a relatively safe alternative, then I can see how that might work itself out.
Perhaps you should disclose your deeply held beliefs on the subject before floating a "free market" red herring like that. Gmafb.
Your implied meaning of "free market" means majoritarianism and a rejection of any Constitutional levers to counteract the "tyranny of the majority." Protecting the basic rights of those who may not constitute a majority or a plurality of a community has been deeply rooted in our American conscience for ... somewhere between 150 and 247 years (I guess there are arguments for fewer years). This is sometimes called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty". (E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty)
I'm not a (medical) doctor, but it seems to me that relying on, at present, the potential availability of Plan C is a foolish substitute for safe, legal abortions. I think you live in Texas, if memory serves. So you should know full well that Texas and many other states will quickly act to close any gaps in the law that currently exist as it relates to availability of Plan C. From that Atlantic article:QuoteOf course, other factors might be discouraging people from pursuing self-managed abortions. The procedure involves severe cramping and heavy bleeding, and in the states that are most hostile to abortion rights, women who self-induce their own abortions must rely on hotlines and text support from faraway doctors if they get scared or experience complications. Aid Access is based in Austria, beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement and the new abortion-medication measure, but the site still inhabits a legal gray area: Four states have criminalized managing one’s own abortion, and about two dozen people have been prosecuted for self-managing an abortion since 2000. Mainstream medical research generally suggests that self-managed abortions are safe and effective, but anti-abortion-rights groups vehemently disagree and have published their own reports saying they are dangerous. Whatever the reason, far fewer women in the U.S. have medication abortions than in some other countries: Medication abortions accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2017, compared with more than 90 percent in Finland and more than 80 percent in Mexico City, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
So, despite whether you want to deal with the potential medical complications and lack of adequate healthcare services that accompany a self-induced abortion in America, you still might be a criminal for doing so. I think that's outrageous, and I find you to be a person who is smart enough to follow along, here.
Yes, I think the circumstances of many Americans could be significantly worse if criminalization of abortions were left to the states. My “free market” point is that we may need to go through some growing pains to arrive at a lasting solution to the abortion debate. SCOTUS Justices aren’t philosopher kings who can just impose solutions to complex problems.
You kind of skirted my actual first point. The question was, where do you fall on the pro-life vs. pro-choice spectrum?
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 06:14:24 PM
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 06:26:23 PM
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.
I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 06:31:01 PM
Quote
The leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1521600441322246147
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 06:35:03 PM
Completely share this sentiment.QuoteThe leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1521600441322246147
Me too, brah. I've been out here for so long arguing that the institution of the highest court in the land was still largely independent, and I'm wrong if this turns out to be right.
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 06:49:20 PM
Quote
Yes, the leak was unprecedented. But so, too, is what the Supreme Court is doing. Power means that rules and norms and conventions of trust within the court have become immaterial, just as the lives and health of more than half the population have been rendered immaterial. The Emperor of Law has had no clothing on for a good, long time. With the leak, this reality is increasingly apparent to us all.
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1521597619771953152
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 06:52:42 PM
The idea behind the last point is that I find it very hard to believe killing a viable fetus would be less harmful to the compromised mother than birthing it via c-section. But as a benevolent ruler I would of course take into account everything science has to say about it.I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.
I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 06:52:59 PM
Your guy Vladeck says the same.QuoteYes, the leak was unprecedented. But so, too, is what the Supreme Court is doing. Power means that rules and norms and conventions of trust within the court have become immaterial, just as the lives and health of more than half the population have been rendered immaterial. The Emperor of Law has had no clothing on for a good, long time. With the leak, this reality is increasingly apparent to us all.
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1521597619771953152
I guess it's nice to know I'm not alone? And yeah, I do know Vladeck.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 06:57:05 PM
The idea behind the last point is that I find it very hard to believe killing a viable fetus would be less harmful to the compromised mother than birthing it via c-section. But as a benevolent ruler I would of course take into account everything science has to say about it.I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.
I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.
Right, and the current status of the law is that, regardless of trimester or point of viability (Roe; Casey), that decision is a private medical decision between a patient and her doctor. As a benevolent ruler, I'm sure you'd agree.
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 07:05:37 PM
Post by: CHONGS on May 03, 2022, 07:05:58 PM
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2022, 07:07:16 PM
They'd love to take down Brown too, but that'll take a few decades.
Will it, though?
Post by: CHONGS on May 03, 2022, 07:10:09 PM
Yes, the Overton window isn't there just yet. But they'll give it a shove that direction after abortion, contraception, and gay rights are finished.They'd love to take down Brown too, but that'll take a few decades.
Will it, though?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 03, 2022, 07:33:49 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2022, 07:50:35 PM
In the late third trimester especially, the child’s interest would be more represented in my system than it currently is in many places, I think.
Viable babies don't get aborted in the late third trimester, so not really.
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 07:52:00 PM
So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Post by: star seed 7 on May 03, 2022, 08:09:51 PM
So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?
And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?
Post by: Spracne on May 03, 2022, 08:14:55 PM
So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?
And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?
I guess that would all be up to the "free market," as catastrophe says. The only thing the Constitution says about the inception of rights as it relates to life is contained in Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment. There, birth is the earliest delineator.
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 08:33:42 PM
Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?
And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?
First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.
Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 08:40:43 PM
That comment was directly responding to Spracne saying the current system would leave that decision entirely in the hands of a mother and doctor where the mother’s health is at risk.In the late third trimester especially, the child’s interest would be more represented in my system than it currently is in many places, I think.
Viable babies don't get aborted in the late third trimester, so not really.
Post by: star seed 7 on May 03, 2022, 08:46:13 PM
Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?
And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?
First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.
Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).
I disagree, it's about the rights of the mother and at what point she loses the autonomy of her body.
Post by: cfbandyman on May 03, 2022, 08:54:10 PM
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.
Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).
Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.
If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.
That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.
Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 08:55:26 PM
I know. That’s exactly why most pro-lifers and pro-choicers are never going to find common ground on the issue. They view abortion from two entirely different perspectives (minus the handful of fringe weirdos who literally do want to control women’s bodies).Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?
Great question. It's not very good.
Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?
And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?
First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.
Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).
I disagree, it's about the rights of the mother and at what point she loses the autonomy of her body.
I mean, we currently legislate how people can use their own bodies in several ways. Selling of organs and prostitution come to mind. I think the biggest difference is that most people agree on the purpose those laws serve.
Post by: catastrophe on May 03, 2022, 09:02:12 PM
I agree with just about all of this, and I’m equally perplexed by it. Too many conservatives treat abortion as a purely social issue when the fallout has massive economic impact.I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.
Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).
Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.
If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.
That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.
Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.
I was actually just talking with the wife about it yesterday that Catholics are a good example. Many treat abortion like Satan’s greatest accomplishment on the earth, but they essentially fuel the very same fire by coming down so hard on contraception.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 03, 2022, 10:56:03 PM
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.
Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).
Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.
If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.
That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.
Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.
I think you meant ad hominem, my hominid
Post by: Trim on May 03, 2022, 11:12:57 PM
Quote
Countries in which abortion is completely illegal/prohibited:
Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note: This is a list of countries in which abortion has been completely prohibited. For a more complete and detailed list of countries and their various legal stances on abortion, see the table further down the page.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal
Post by: MakeItRain on May 04, 2022, 01:09:28 AM
On one hand, many experts said the new justices would not reverse Roe. On the other, that's EXACTLY what they were put there to do.
Real being real, of all the big hot button culture war issues this is the one I care about the least, like by far. I think that ultimately these states will roll back some of the most extreme abortion restrictions while still heavily restricting abortions.
What pisses me off about this is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said in their confirmation hearings that Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent. That idiot Susan Collins voted yes for both of them and said she did so because they wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade. People are going hard with the performative outrage about the leak, as if it means anything substantiative, but have nothing to say about these dudes lying their asses off.
Post by: MakeItRain on May 04, 2022, 01:10:10 AM
Completely share this sentiment.QuoteThe leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1521600441322246147
Me too, brah. I've been out here for so long arguing that the institution of the highest court in the land was still largely independent, and I'm wrong if this turns out to be right.
I was at this point when the voting rights act was overturned.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 04, 2022, 10:32:30 AM
On one hand, many experts said the new justices would not reverse Roe. On the other, that's EXACTLY what they were put there to do.
Real being real, of all the big hot button culture war issues this is the one I care about the least, like by far. I think that ultimately these states will roll back some of the most extreme abortion restrictions while still heavily restricting abortions.
What pisses me off about this is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said in their confirmation hearings that Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent. That idiot Susan Collins voted yes for both of them and said she did so because they wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade. People are going hard with the performative outrage about the leak, as if it means anything substantiative, but have nothing to say about these dudes lying their asses off.
Kavanaugh testified under oath that a devil's triangle is a drinking game, like quarters.
Post by: steve dave on May 04, 2022, 10:36:48 AM
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1521875715641298944
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 10:40:57 AM
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.
Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).
Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.
If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.
That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.
Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.
Hello. I would like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
Seriously, so much of this resonated with me (including the Catholic part). Sometimes I wonder (a) how I survived this long on the Earth, and (b) whether I'm permanently mumped up.
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
On one hand, many experts said the new justices would not reverse Roe. On the other, that's EXACTLY what they were put there to do.
Real being real, of all the big hot button culture war issues this is the one I care about the least, like by far. I think that ultimately these states will roll back some of the most extreme abortion restrictions while still heavily restricting abortions.
What pisses me off about this is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said in their confirmation hearings that Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent. That idiot Susan Collins voted yes for both of them and said she did so because they wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade. People are going hard with the performative outrage about the leak, as if it means anything substantiative, but have nothing to say about these dudes lying their asses off.
Yeah, the bolded part is what really rustles my jimmies. I'm already cynical and didn't want to become more cynical :(
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 04, 2022, 10:49:53 AM
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 10:51:30 AM
There probably isn't a way to actually fix the courts now, right?
Let's wait until when/if the rumored decision comes down. But if it does, I'm team BID
Post by: CNS on May 04, 2022, 11:03:20 AM
There probably isn't a way to actually fix the courts now, right?
Between the two party system and corporate money, it's been over.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 11:08:23 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 04, 2022, 12:25:20 PM
lmao
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1521875715641298944
maga all star
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 12:29:39 PM
lmao
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1521875715641298944
maga all star
And she also wasn't nominated/confirmed by the date this draft was circulated. Lol.
Post by: Kid In the Hall on May 04, 2022, 04:48:16 PM
Post by: ChiComCat on May 04, 2022, 04:49:45 PM
If/when this goes through, it'll be interesting to see how the business community responds. It's obviously a tough position, but I imagine there will be requests for boycotts, requests to formally state positions, etc. Will groups like the Chamber of Commerce respond in a similar manner as they've done with LGBTQ issues? And, for states with greater access, will the reverse be true with respect to requests for boycotts from pro-lifers?
Who/what is getting boycotted?
Post by: catastrophe on May 04, 2022, 04:55:13 PM
I think he’s getting at a situation similar to the Bathroom Bill stuff where artists and other companies refused to do business in states that passed stupid laws.If/when this goes through, it'll be interesting to see how the business community responds. It's obviously a tough position, but I imagine there will be requests for boycotts, requests to formally state positions, etc. Will groups like the Chamber of Commerce respond in a similar manner as they've done with LGBTQ issues? And, for states with greater access, will the reverse be true with respect to requests for boycotts from pro-lifers?
Who/what is getting boycotted?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 04, 2022, 04:58:12 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 04:59:51 PM
If/when this goes through, it'll be interesting to see how the business community responds. It's obviously a tough position, but I imagine there will be requests for boycotts, requests to formally state positions, etc. Will groups like the Chamber of Commerce respond in a similar manner as they've done with LGBTQ issues? And, for states with greater access, will the reverse be true with respect to requests for boycotts from pro-lifers?
I'm tempted to go into business as an abortionist, myself.
Post by: Justwin on May 04, 2022, 05:07:11 PM
Has anyone seen any polling on the Kansas anti-abortion amendment that is on the ballot in August? I'm assuming that thing passes with like 70% of the vote since the democrats rarely even have anything on their primary ballot, but just curious.
I have not seen any polling, but I will be voting in a primary for maybe the first time ever. I will be voting Yes.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 05:56:51 PM
Based on recent observation, we need to keep all weapons away from Liz Warren. She's coming unhinged. Don't want James Hodgkinson Part II.
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 06:01:17 PM
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/befa039f94c024e519cb17609dcfd090/tumblr_ozv19c4wuv1w09efio1_400.gifv)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 06:04:24 PM
:lol: :lol:
You and your fellow #neoconGe are the last people that can say that.
Thus the name, deflectobots.
Liz Warren's meltdown today was wholly driven by the Supreme Court leak, topical as hell.
JFC dude, you responded to a bullshit Tweet about a dipshit Newsmax commentator just a few posts back.
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 06:08:45 PM
Terrible analogy (no surprise there)
It was a metaphor, Bender.
You mess with the bull, you get the 'horns.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 06:14:48 PM
Terrible analogy (no surprise there)
It was a metaphor, Bender.
You mess with the bull, you get the 'horns.
Steer is vastly more appropriate.
Nice edit on the rest of my spot on post, tho. How very Phil Titola of you.
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 06:16:22 PM
Terrible analogy (no surprise there)
It was a metaphor, Bender.
You mess with the bull, you get the 'horns.
Steer is vastly more appropriate.
Nice edit on the rest of my spot on post, tho. How very Phil Titola of you.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/5/2/15/anigif_enhanced-buzz-11560-1367522919-14.gif)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 06:19:02 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 06:20:55 PM
A tsunami of tapouts. Oh, and please stop facilitating SteveDave and Chum (as well as others) when they try to inject non topical items or extremely poor barely topical humor from Elon Musk's evil Twitter machine.
(https://c.tenor.com/J539npxaHe4AAAAC/john-bender-the-breakfast-club.gif)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 06:35:26 PM
Sad
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 07:29:52 PM
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1522007908308951040?s=20&t=pGY2ArA4gYLbHu_TQ01YnA
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 07:49:56 PM
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 07:53:09 PM
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o6Zt4HU9uwXmXSAuI/giphy.gif)
Post by: catastrophe on May 04, 2022, 08:14:16 PM
Good ol Andrew Lawrence. A low self esteem simp.Is there anything about the spirit of his tweet you disagree with?
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 08:20:57 PM
Good ol Andrew Lawrence. A low self esteem simp.
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dax--a man in his mid 50's and allegedly married--just used the term "simp."
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 08:23:03 PM
People can opine on whatever they want.Good ol Andrew Lawrence. A low self esteem simp.Is there anything about the spirit of his tweet you disagree with?
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ll laugh at, but certainly accept the director or VP of “rapid response” at media matters (stand back people, media matters rapid responder coming through!!) right to opine on whatever he wants.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 08:24:31 PM
That makes absolutely no sense Spracs aka just one of the herdGood ol Andrew Lawrence. A low self esteem simp.
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dax--a man in his mid 50's and allegedly married--just used the term "simp."
Post by: star seed 7 on May 04, 2022, 08:34:12 PM
That makes absolutely no sense Spracs aka just one of the herdGood ol Andrew Lawrence. A low self esteem simp.
The kind of dude that Spracs will always gravitate to.
(Using the word “dude” very very loosely here)
So sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dax--a man in his mid 50's and allegedly married--just used the term "simp."
Yeah, he's in his early 60's
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2022, 08:36:51 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 04, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2022, 12:06:30 AM
Post by: chum1 on May 05, 2022, 10:40:02 AM
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1522222698415329281
Post by: steve dave on May 05, 2022, 04:45:09 PM
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1522329008150654978
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 05, 2022, 04:47:39 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 04:50:48 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
Post by: Justwin on May 05, 2022, 04:52:11 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
Post by: steve dave on May 05, 2022, 04:52:59 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
:excited:
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 04:55:37 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Post by: Justwin on May 05, 2022, 04:57:57 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
There are lots that I've never read. I've never read the Dred Scott decision either.
Post by: Justwin on May 05, 2022, 04:58:56 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 05:00:59 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
The one that this Court found unconstitutional? Or the government employees one? Thanks for admitting you found Roe wrongly decided without having actually read it, btw.
Post by: steve dave on May 05, 2022, 05:01:40 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 05:05:27 PM
Post by: Justwin on May 05, 2022, 05:07:24 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
The one that this Court found unconstitutional? Or the government employees one? Thanks for admitting you found Roe wrongly decided without having actually read it, btw.
The one this court found unconstiutional.
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 05:09:46 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
The one that this Court found unconstitutional? Or the government employees one? Thanks for admitting you found Roe wrongly decided without having actually read it, btw.
The one this court found unconstiutional.
Feel free to quote my post about it. I stand by every word. My thinking hasn't changed, but it appears the Court has.
Post by: Justwin on May 05, 2022, 05:10:24 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
The one that this Court found unconstitutional? Or the government employees one? Thanks for admitting you found Roe wrongly decided without having actually read it, btw.
Roe was wrongly decided. I don't have to read the decision if the conclusion it reached was wrong.
Regardless, there are plenty of legal scholars that think Roe was poorly reasoned and there are many in favor of the conclusion that believe it was poorly reasoned. That's enough for me to conclude it was poorly reasoned, especially given that I think the conclusion it reached was wrong.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 05, 2022, 05:10:52 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
This. Knowing that the SC is a partisan group of hacks who lie will have an effect on all levels of appellate law. and holy crap when unhealthy shits like Alito and Thomas pass watch out for justices Kalen and Ellen if there is a dem in the WH. They literally turned it into the House
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2022, 05:14:13 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"
I am not joking when I say that if decision comes down as expected, the Supreme Court just tazed their balls off. eff around and find out kinda stuff.
They tazed their balls off with the original Roe decision.
You mean the one you've never read?
Can you explain to me again why Biden's employer vaccine mandate will be found constitutional again?
The one that this Court found unconstitutional? Or the government employees one? Thanks for admitting you found Roe wrongly decided without having actually read it, btw.
Roe was wrongly decided. I don't have to read the decision if the conclusion it reached was wrong.
Regardless, there are plenty of legal scholars that think Roe was poorly reasoned and there are many in favor of the conclusion that believe it was poorly reasoned. That's enough for me to conclude it was poorly reasoned, especially given that I think the conclusion it reached was wrong.
Here's a version you can read for free. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Read it for yourself! https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
Post by: catastrophe on May 05, 2022, 06:45:40 PM
so the only potential recourse would be to impeach a sitting Justice...i guess my question would be "is lying during your confirmation hearing an impeachable offense?"I’d need to check the transcript, but assuming there is apparent perjury and Congress doesn’t look to impeach one of the new guys then we should just abolish confirmation hearings.
Post by: steve dave on May 06, 2022, 07:06:52 PM
https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/1522724746093285380
Post by: MakeItRain on May 06, 2022, 09:05:04 PM
Post by: steve dave on May 07, 2022, 09:56:29 PM
Post by: chum1 on May 08, 2022, 11:43:52 AM
Quote
John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett -- are Catholic.
Post by: Kat Kid on May 08, 2022, 12:21:10 PM
Post by: sys on May 08, 2022, 06:50:54 PM
https://twitter.com/davidklion/status/1523110731092213761
nobody said changing tribes would be pretty.
Post by: Kat Kid on May 08, 2022, 07:20:03 PM
Post by: sys on May 08, 2022, 07:36:11 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 08, 2022, 07:43:11 PM
Matt Bruenig made a point that I don’t think has been appreciated much yet and that is the 6-3 majority is likely to be extremely durable now that strategic retirement is just completely baked in the cake for republicans as it would take like 3-4 straight presidential elections to guarantee getting a seat back for dems.
I don't think I've said this yet in my countless conversations I've had about this lately (I'm pissed), but if I know John Roberts (I do), and were I John Roberts (I'm not), I would announce my retirement during this session and allow Biden to break serve.
Post by: Institutional Control on May 08, 2022, 08:33:26 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on May 09, 2022, 12:16:04 AM
i don't think people are actually that good at predicting either of when they'll no longer want to work or when they'll die.
Agreed
Post by: MakeItRain on May 09, 2022, 12:16:39 AM
Roberts is the only one who isn’t hyper partisan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How exactly did you determine this?
Post by: chum1 on May 09, 2022, 06:47:10 AM
https://twitter.com/irin/status/1523486887834701824
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on May 09, 2022, 08:04:17 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 09, 2022, 10:36:41 AM
Yeah, in hindsight, pretty obvious that they were itching to do this.
https://twitter.com/irin/status/1523486887834701824
comey and kav were all they needed to cert this thing. I think the R v. W questions should have been a little more exhaustive
Post by: passranch on May 09, 2022, 03:27:48 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on May 13, 2022, 05:20:19 PM
I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.
If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.
All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.
Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).
Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.
If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.
That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.
Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.
Hello. I would like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
Seriously, so much of this resonated with me (including the Catholic part). Sometimes I wonder (a) how I survived this long on the Earth, and (b) whether I'm permanently mumped up.
For sure, hmu if you want.
Also yeah, totally still deal with a lot of things to this day
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 24, 2022, 11:24:33 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 24, 2022, 11:29:26 AM
Quote
In 2012 the court ruled that when a state court "substantially" interferes with a defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel, the defendant, with a new lawyer, may appeal to federal court to show that he was denied his right to effective counsel. Back then, the majority was 7-to-2, with Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. On Monday Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court's new six-justice conservative super majority.
He said that federal courts may not hear "new evidence" obtained after conviction to show how deficient the trial or appellate lawyer in state court was. To allow such evidence to be presented in federal court, he said, "encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts," depriving the states of "the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of criminal law."
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
I'm really not sure if Thomas is actually this stupid or if there is some sort of benefit to him if innocent people have to stay in prison or get put to death.
Post by: kstate4life on May 24, 2022, 11:48:49 AM
QuoteIn 2012 the court ruled that when a state court "substantially" interferes with a defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel, the defendant, with a new lawyer, may appeal to federal court to show that he was denied his right to effective counsel. Back then, the majority was 7-to-2, with Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. On Monday Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court's new six-justice conservative super majority.
He said that federal courts may not hear "new evidence" obtained after conviction to show how deficient the trial or appellate lawyer in state court was. To allow such evidence to be presented in federal court, he said, "encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts," depriving the states of "the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of criminal law."
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
I'm really not sure if Thomas is actually this stupid or if there is some sort of benefit to him if innocent people have to stay in prison or get put to death.
Yeah this is unreal dumb!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 24, 2022, 11:58:07 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 24, 2022, 12:06:35 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 24, 2022, 01:53:48 PM
In some ways those people are worse than the ones who were rightly convicted bc now they have a score to settle, and since they probably can’t find a job they’ll have plenty of time to plot out their crimes since they won’t be spending that time picking themselves up by their bootstraps.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 24, 2022, 02:07:59 PM
I’m with SCOTUS on this. I am getting sick and tired of people who are guilty of spending time in prison being set free into the general public just because they “technically” didn’t “commit the crime they were convicted of”
In some ways those people are worse than the ones who were rightly convicted bc now they have a score to settle, and since they probably can’t find a job they’ll have plenty of time to plot out their crimes since they won’t be spending that time picking themselves up by their bootstraps.
Those sandbagging son-of-a-bitches. :angry:
Post by: Spracne on May 24, 2022, 03:33:43 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on May 24, 2022, 03:55:26 PM
QuoteIn 2012 the court ruled that when a state court "substantially" interferes with a defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel, the defendant, with a new lawyer, may appeal to federal court to show that he was denied his right to effective counsel. Back then, the majority was 7-to-2, with Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. On Monday Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court's new six-justice conservative super majority.
He said that federal courts may not hear "new evidence" obtained after conviction to show how deficient the trial or appellate lawyer in state court was. To allow such evidence to be presented in federal court, he said, "encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts," depriving the states of "the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of criminal law."
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
I'm really not sure if Thomas is actually this stupid or if there is some sort of benefit to him if innocent people have to stay in prison or get put to death.
Yeah this is unreal dumb!
Do the other justices not get to review these opinions before they are published? That's patently absurd, looks like some crap written by someone who knows they are stripping someone else's rights.
Post by: Justwin on May 24, 2022, 04:36:12 PM
Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 24, 2022, 04:38:33 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on May 24, 2022, 05:59:10 PM
I don't know a lot about the specifics of these cases, but in general, I come down on the side of making it more difficult for people to be in prison. The criminal justice system should err on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of innocent people being imprisoned. Anything that provides an avenue for an innocent person to go free should be weighted positively pretty heavily.Justwin the progressive
Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.
(https://c.tenor.com/28LPKsfB6mkAAAAC/my-nigga-denzel-washington.gif)
Post by: Spracne on May 24, 2022, 06:18:43 PM
I don't know a lot about the specifics of these cases, but in general, I come down on the side of making it more difficult for people to be in prison. The criminal justice system should err on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of innocent people being imprisoned. Anything that provides an avenue for an innocent person to go free should be weighted positively pretty heavily.Justwin the progressive
Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.
(https://c.tenor.com/28LPKsfB6mkAAAAC/my-nigga-denzel-washington.gif)
:thumbs: And to think, I had to go to law school to gain this perspective.
Post by: chum1 on June 17, 2022, 08:16:56 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 17, 2022, 08:23:20 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 17, 2022, 08:26:37 AM
#blueanon Deflecto Theater is sadly just getting ramped up.
Post by: chum1 on June 17, 2022, 08:51:05 AM
Also, this is one of those PAINFULLY obvious "if the shoe was on the other foot" situations for pubs. They'd be impeaching.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 17, 2022, 09:01:52 AM
Post by: catastrophe on June 17, 2022, 11:07:36 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 17, 2022, 11:29:27 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 17, 2022, 12:22:08 PM
The court would be better without Thomas on it, but that’s a dangerous path to go down.
Can't throw a guy off the court for being into fat chicks.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 17, 2022, 01:21:50 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 17, 2022, 03:25:35 PM
#blueanon body shaming is rolling at red line levels today
guilty of calling ginni a tub on gE as charged. I will also call her a proper weirdo and simple minded dinkconk
Post by: Cire on June 19, 2022, 10:46:17 AM
Cautionary tale
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mocat on June 23, 2022, 01:27:54 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 23, 2022, 02:30:20 PM
There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.
There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 23, 2022, 02:33:24 PM
They’re clearly smart people. Thomas is probably the only member of the Court you might struggle to find super glowing things about.
There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.
There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.
AND they were asked in confirmation hearings, when they were under oath, if they thought it should be overturned. Some of them lied
Post by: Spracne on June 23, 2022, 03:23:32 PM
They’re clearly smart people. Thomas is probably the only member of the Court you might struggle to find super glowing things about.
There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.
There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.
I remember when stare decisis was a thing. Like when the Chief Justice determined a 9-0 decision was necessary in order to overturn the racist policy established in Plessy v. Ferguson. Now all you need is a divided court voting along ideological lines.
Post by: Cire on June 23, 2022, 10:11:57 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 08:56:20 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 09:09:42 AM
https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/1539997689148018693?s=21&t=UjcxHaVtEqUeQKv6-7juOg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This made me think of k-s-u's "per capita" rant a few years ago.
Post by: Institutional Control on June 24, 2022, 09:15:01 AM
Post by: Justwin on June 24, 2022, 09:19:10 AM
Post by: bucket on June 24, 2022, 09:21:39 AM
Really raises the stakes on August 2.
:confused:
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 09:22:43 AM
Really raises the stakes on August 2.
:confused:
That's when Kansas will pass a constitutional amendment so they can start jailing people who have abortions.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 09:25:16 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 09:29:30 AM
Yeah, basically it's up to the states now
Except for guns.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 09:30:34 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: OK_Cat on June 24, 2022, 09:32:06 AM
But guns and stuff
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 09:32:44 AM
Yeah, basically it's up to the states now
Except for guns.
Of course can't have that
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 09:33:58 AM
Abortions are still going to happen, it’s just that there will be more dead women in dark alleys.
But guns and stuff
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yeah, LOL that certified creepster Alito will stop abortions. He will just stop safe ones
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 09:38:46 AM
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 09:41:37 AM
Post by: WildcatNkilt on June 24, 2022, 09:42:55 AM
I hope everyone that was for overturning Roe v Wade is also going to register to get licensed as a foster parent. Those foster kid numbers are going to be insane! Pro-life, though!
Post by: kstater on June 24, 2022, 09:44:39 AM
Warm up those welfare checks and foster families!Something Something bootstraps
I hope everyone that was for overturning Roe v Wade is also going to register to get licensed as a foster parent. Those foster kid numbers are going to be insane! Pro-life, though!
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 09:51:44 AM
Yeah, basically it's up to the states now
Only until they have the votes to make abortion illegal at the federal level.
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 09:56:30 AM
Yeah, basically it's up to the states now
Not really.
https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/1540341053961666563
Post by: DQ12 on June 24, 2022, 09:58:08 AM
likewise, i think the "abortions will still happen" argument is cousins with the pro-gunners who say "outlawing guns means only outlaws will get guns."
i find myself nodding with a lot of what i read in the opinion today (stare decisis notwithstanding), but it seems at odds with the thrust of yesterday's big opinion.
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 10:00:03 AM
Yeah, basically it's up to the states now
Only until they have the votes to make abortion illegal at the federal level.
Not wasting any time!
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1540345323264016385
Post by: MadCat on June 24, 2022, 10:02:17 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 10:05:51 AM
the tension vis a vis guns/abortion is pretty interesting. i think the Court is a little inconsistent with its rationale between the two (and I know they're different rights at issue), but still. are we taking a tight reading of the 14th or no? are we taking a tight reading of the 2nd or no?
likewise, i think the "abortions will still happen" argument is cousins with the pro-gunners who say "outlawing guns means only outlaws will get guns."
i find myself nodding with a lot of what i read in the opinion today (stare decisis notwithstanding), but it seems at odds with the thrust of yesterday's big opinion.
Not when you consider that they are partisan hacks. It makes perfect sense to take the republican viewpoint on both issues.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:06:29 AM
the tension vis a vis guns/abortion is pretty interesting. i think the Court is a little inconsistent with its rationale between the two (and I know they're different rights at issue), but still. are we taking a tight reading of the 14th or no? are we taking a tight reading of the 2nd or no?
likewise, i think the "abortions will still happen" argument is cousins with the pro-gunners who say "outlawing guns means only outlaws will get guns."
i find myself nodding with a lot of what i read in the opinion today (stare decisis notwithstanding), but it seems at odds with the thrust of yesterday's big opinion.
Except that only total rough ridin' nitwits think anyone is actually trying to outlaw guns while states are literally outlawing abortions.
these justices went through confirmation hearings and testified under oath it was literally stare decisis. They would not have been confirmed had they said they would overturn roe. They are rough ridin' liars at best.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 10:12:21 AM
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112
Yeah, this is going to get interesting and by interesting, I mean bad. I'm a huge dumbass, but from what I gather is they overturned because there was no past precedent for the right. So, again, i'm a huge dumbass, but I would think that there are lots of stuff that falls in to that category that a bunch of religious weirdos would love to make illegal.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 10:13:24 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:15:24 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:16:43 AM
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 10:18:11 AM
don't worry guys, I'm sure they will stop at overturning Roe. They definitely aren't going to see how much further they can go. trust me on this one.
This is clearly 100% about the sanctity of life and 0% about wanting to tell other people how to live their lives.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 10:20:01 AM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 10:20:35 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:21:29 AM
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 10:22:31 AM
Douglas county prosecutor just stated she would not prosecute. This will be pretty common across the country. And it should except it also deals a pretty significant blow to the judicial branch of our federal government.It’s basically what the Court is asking for by starting to roll back on the role it had previously taken to step in for basic human needs when Congress couldn’t do crap.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 10:23:13 AM
which state is most likely to be the first to outlaw rubbers and why is it Alabama?
I'm betting it's Texas.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 10:23:33 AM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
yeah it kind of feels like SCOTUS is sending the signal "pass laws banning whatever you want, we're willing to hear the case and support it" and if that sounds hyperbolic i mean...???
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 10:24:20 AM
which state is most likely to be the first to outlaw rubbers and why is it Alabama?
I'm betting it's Texas.
Can you imagine the STD rate will be, holy eff
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 10:25:05 AM
which state is most likely to be the first to outlaw rubbers and why is it Alabama?
I'm betting it's Texas.
yes if greg gets re-elected (sadly he will) there is pretty much nothing standing in their way of pretty much anything.
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 10:27:50 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
Thomas "conveniently" left out the Loving case in writing his opinion that all other cases should be reconsidered. Not sure why he would have left that case out of his opinion. :dunno:
Post by: CHONGS on June 24, 2022, 10:29:58 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2022, 10:31:05 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:33:17 AM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
yeah it kind of feels like SCOTUS is sending the signal "pass laws banning whatever you want, we're willing to hear the case and support it" and if that sounds hyperbolic i mean...???
Then pass laws banning machine guns for 18 year olds....
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
Thomas "conveniently" left out the Loving case in writing his opinion that all other cases should be reconsidered. Not sure why he would have left that case out of his opinion. :dunno:
he is a world class crap bag
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 10:37:47 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
Thomas "conveniently" left out the Loving case in writing his opinion that all other cases should be reconsidered. Not sure why he would have left that case out of his opinion. :dunno:
he is a world class crap bag
I mean it had to be a world class troll for him to mention all of the others and not Loving. Just amazing.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 10:38:10 AM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
yeah it kind of feels like SCOTUS is sending the signal "pass laws banning whatever you want, we're willing to hear the case and support it" and if that sounds hyperbolic i mean...???
Then pass laws banning machine guns for 18 year olds....
This court would probably overturn a ban on vaping.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:39:39 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
Thomas "conveniently" left out the Loving case in writing his opinion that all other cases should be reconsidered. Not sure why he would have left that case out of his opinion. :dunno:
he is a world class crap bag
I mean it had to be a world class troll for him to mention all of the others and not Loving. Just amazing.
ABSOLUTELY this. It is a next level human piece of garbage troll
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 10:40:42 AM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
yeah it kind of feels like SCOTUS is sending the signal "pass laws banning whatever you want, we're willing to hear the case and support it" and if that sounds hyperbolic i mean...???
Then pass laws banning machine guns for 18 year olds....
This court would probably overturn a ban on vaping.
you already know they will. This issue is probably fast tracked for them. Millions of magas are missing that crackling goodness
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 10:53:36 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2022, 11:03:51 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
It doesn't have to be a state for them to take the case. It just needs to be some racist challenge it on "constitutional" grounds, it will certainly make it's way through the courts. This current make-up of the court wouldn't hesitate to take up a "constitutional" issue.
Thomas can easily justify it the same way he justified abolishing Roe and everything else coming. It shouldn't be a federal mandate.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 11:06:00 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
It doesn't have to be a state for them to take the case. It just needs to be some racist challenge it on "constitutional" grounds, it will certainly make it's way through the courts. This current make-up of the court wouldn't hesitate to take up a "constitutional" issue.
Thomas can easily justify it the same way he justified abolishing Roe and everything else coming. It shouldn't be a federal mandate.
yeah, but would he? That is what would be interesting to see. He and his wife seem like real shitbags so I could totally see him changing his opinion because it affects him.
Post by: Institutional Control on June 24, 2022, 11:09:31 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2022, 11:16:14 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
It doesn't have to be a state for them to take the case. It just needs to be some racist challenge it on "constitutional" grounds, it will certainly make it's way through the courts. This current make-up of the court wouldn't hesitate to take up a "constitutional" issue.
Thomas can easily justify it the same way he justified abolishing Roe and everything else coming. It shouldn't be a federal mandate.
yeah, but would he? That is what would be interesting to see. He and his wife seem like real shitbags so I could totally see him changing his opinion because it affects him.
Let me let you into the mind of a coon. He doesn't see he and Ginny the same way he sees other interracial couples. They always have some sort of twisted rationalization to justify how they're different than the people they look down their noses at. This current thing with Hershel Walker is a perfect example. I have no doubt that he believed all the crap he said about absentee fathers, never mind the fact that he has multiple kids that he ignored. He didn't forget, he just cared more about the applause of the people who wrongly crap on black men as bad fathers, than he did his kids. In his head, it was "those bitches tricked me, so those kids aren't mine."
Coons always have a reason to justify why they aren't like the rest of us. Keep that in mind when you see something from Whitlock and why his views changed so much the last 15 years.
Post by: CNS on June 24, 2022, 11:20:00 AM
Douglas county prosecutor just stated she would not prosecute. This will be pretty common across the country. And it should except it also deals a pretty significant blow to the judicial branch of our federal government.
Now we just need doctors to build clinics and stake their career on not being prosecuted by the DoCO prosecutor, as well as the next prosecutor, and the next, etc.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 11:26:34 AM
If abortion is murder why would anyone be happy with a states right to choose murder? If they were killing toddlers in CO, I wouldn't care that I lived in Texas, I'd want that crap made illegal and I would do a lot more than just wait fifty years for the Supreme Court to rule on it. The fact is, abortion doesn't equate to murder and everyone knows it.
I can assure you that these people are not happy with states having any rights that they disagree with, and will introduce federal legislation to ban abortion everywhere as soon as they have control of the house, senate, and president again.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on June 24, 2022, 11:30:08 AM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
It doesn't have to be a state for them to take the case. It just needs to be some racist challenge it on "constitutional" grounds, it will certainly make it's way through the courts. This current make-up of the court wouldn't hesitate to take up a "constitutional" issue.
Thomas can easily justify it the same way he justified abolishing Roe and everything else coming. It shouldn't be a federal mandate.
yeah, but would he? That is what would be interesting to see. He and his wife seem like real shitbags so I could totally see him changing his opinion because it affects him.
Let me let you into the mind of a coon. He doesn't see he and Ginny the same way he sees other interracial couples. They always have some sort of twisted rationalization to justify how they're different than the people they look down their noses at. This current thing with Hershel Walker is a perfect example. I have no doubt that he believed all the crap he said about absentee fathers, never mind the fact that he has multiple kids that he ignored. He didn't forget, he just cared more about the applause of the people who wrongly crap on black men as bad fathers, than he did his kids. In his head, it was "those bitches tricked me, so those kids aren't mine."
Coons always have a reason to justify why they aren't like the rest of us. Keep that in mind when you see something from Whitlock and why his views changed so much the last 15 years.
:horrorsurprise:
Post by: DQ12 on June 24, 2022, 11:47:16 AM
If abortion is murder why would anyone be happy with a states right to choose murder? If they were killing toddlers in CO, I wouldn't care that I lived in Texas, I'd want that crap made illegal and I would do a lot more than just wait fifty years for the Supreme Court to rule on it. The fact is, abortion doesn't equate to murder and everyone knows it.what would you do?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 24, 2022, 11:48:27 AM
I say this as a full proponent of strengthening gun laws and banning certain types of guns.
Post by: kstater on June 24, 2022, 11:51:58 AM
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 11:56:45 AM
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1540360023217430528
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 12:12:48 PM
2 of them are old and fat shits so they may not make it to outlaw inter-racial marriages. Although reading Thomas's concurring opinion which makes marrying outside of your race illegal would be interesting
They will go for the gays well before brown people. They will eventually get there, but it will take a bit of time.
yeah it kind of feels like SCOTUS is sending the signal "pass laws banning whatever you want, we're willing to hear the case and support it" and if that sounds hyperbolic i mean...???
Then pass laws banning machine guns for 18 year olds....
dems won't do it but i promise you the MTGs and Boeberts and Cruz's of this country will be tripping over their collective dicks/vags to introduce the most batshit legislation they can cook up
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 12:19:06 PM
Relative to the gun case, #blueanonGe should be enraged at their most favored justices for offering a dissent that was complete crap, using case examples and virtue signaling bullshit that had little to nothing to do with the case at hand.
we are really defining "virtue signaling" down when "pointing out that massacres of children are bad" counts as "virtue signaling"
(i know i just violated the thing i agreed with about not responding to these shitposts)
Post by: Institutional Control on June 24, 2022, 12:22:49 PM
If abortion is murder why would anyone be happy with a states right to choose murder? If they were killing toddlers in CO, I wouldn't care that I lived in Texas, I'd want that crap made illegal and I would do a lot more than just wait fifty years for the Supreme Court to rule on it. The fact is, abortion doesn't equate to murder and everyone knows it.what would you do?
That's a good question and hard to say in my hypothetical that would never happen but I'd like to think I'd go John Brown style and organize and/or participate in actual attacks on places where toddlers were being murdered.
Post by: bucket on June 24, 2022, 12:26:49 PM
If abortion is murder why would anyone be happy with a states right to choose murder? If they were killing toddlers in CO, I wouldn't care that I lived in Texas, I'd want that crap made illegal and I would do a lot more than just wait fifty years for the Supreme Court to rule on it. The fact is, abortion doesn't equate to murder and everyone knows it.what would you do?
That's a good question and hard to say in my hypothetical that would never happen but I'd like to think I'd go John Brown style and organize and/or participate in actual attacks on places where toddlers were being murdered.
(https://forums.pokemmo.eu/uploads/monthly_2021_02/lmao.jpg.7aa4ca8be2a9c70b22951141f8f7eaf8.jpg)
Post by: mocat on June 24, 2022, 12:29:37 PM
I have no idea what this sort of lying could be other than purely political in nature.
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1540360023217430528
amaze
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 12:31:20 PM
Relative to the gun case, #blueanonGe should be enraged at their most favored justices for offering a dissent that was complete crap, using case examples and virtue signaling bullshit that had little to nothing to do with the case at hand.
we are really defining "virtue signaling" down when "pointing out that massacres of children are bad" counts as "virtue signaling"
(i know i just violated the thing i agreed with about not responding to these shitposts)
Hey you know that thing that was bad and the people who voted for the bad thing? Yeah, those that didn't are bad too because they didn't write words well enough
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 24, 2022, 12:38:53 PM
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
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 24, 2022, 12:39:06 PM
Relative to the gun case, #blueanonGe should be enraged at their most favored justices for offering a dissent that was complete crap, using case examples and virtue signaling bullshit that had little to nothing to do with the case at hand.
we are really defining "virtue signaling" down when "pointing out that massacres of children are bad" counts as "virtue signaling"
(i know i just violated the thing i agreed with about not responding to these shitposts)
Those events had nothing to do with the case at hand, thus they are irrelevant. The dissent was trying to play on emotion.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 01:30:13 PM
I’m definitely morbidly curious how the Court would approach an interracial marriage ban.
It really could get interesting. Like who is the most racist governor? Could some small timey mayor ban it and get it to the SC? Could maybe a Dem state "outlaw" it and then basically say they aren't going to prosecute just to get it to the SC just to prove a point? That's prob a terrible idea, but it would be a hoot to see Thomas' opinion.
It doesn't have to be a state for them to take the case. It just needs to be some racist challenge it on "constitutional" grounds, it will certainly make it's way through the courts. This current make-up of the court wouldn't hesitate to take up a "constitutional" issue.
Thomas can easily justify it the same way he justified abolishing Roe and everything else coming. It shouldn't be a federal mandate.
yeah, but would he? That is what would be interesting to see. He and his wife seem like real shitbags so I could totally see him changing his opinion because it affects him.
Let me let you into the mind of a coon. He doesn't see he and Ginny the same way he sees other interracial couples. They always have some sort of twisted rationalization to justify how they're different than the people they look down their noses at. This current thing with Hershel Walker is a perfect example. I have no doubt that he believed all the crap he said about absentee fathers, never mind the fact that he has multiple kids that he ignored. He didn't forget, he just cared more about the applause of the people who wrongly crap on black men as bad fathers, than he did his kids. In his head, it was "those bitches tricked me, so those kids aren't mine."
Coons always have a reason to justify why they aren't like the rest of us. Keep that in mind when you see something from Whitlock and why his views changed so much the last 15 years.
I've seen Clarence's wife. He's clearly playing the long game to end his marriage without having to go through a sinful divorce.
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 01:42:03 PM
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.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 24, 2022, 01:50:37 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 06:18:00 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wiley on June 24, 2022, 07:40:15 PM
Ive seen common alternatives suggested that they may try to open clinics on tribal land. Is that even a feasible option?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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 07:44:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 07:54:35 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:03:24 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: kstater on June 24, 2022, 08:06:12 PM
Really shitty day for dipshits who don’t know how to have sex without getting pregnant. RIPExactly. We should find a way to fund organizations that help get people the things they need to do that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait. We don't want to do that either.
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 08:07:33 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 08:09:53 PM
Ive seen common alternatives suggested that they may try to open clinics on tribal land. Is that even a feasible option?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.
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).
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:13:55 PM
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
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:14:43 PM
Good griefReally shitty day for dipshits who don’t know how to have sex without getting pregnant. RIPExactly. We should find a way to fund organizations that help get people the things they need to do that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait. We don't want to do that either.
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 08:16:06 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 08:19:30 PM
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
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:22:42 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 08:24:11 PM
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.
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 08:26:26 PM
Post by: CHONGS on June 24, 2022, 08:27:19 PM
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.
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 08:27:45 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 08:28:52 PM
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.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
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.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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:30:55 PM
GodspeedFor 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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:40:34 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:43:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 08:43:27 PM
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.
Post by: _33 on June 24, 2022, 08:47:16 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on June 24, 2022, 08:52:14 PM
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.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 08:54:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 08:56:14 PM
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.
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 08:56:34 PM
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.
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2022, 08:58:32 PM
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?
Post by: _33 on June 24, 2022, 09:01:04 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 09:01:22 PM
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.
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 09:03:10 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
Oh, so marginalized groups generally? Yeah, that makes sense.
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 09:05:10 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
yeah it's such a rote thing to say nowadays (that XXX minority group is disparately impacted) that i think it just kind of slipped in...no way it's right
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 09:07:06 PM
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?
there would have to be a new case for the Court to overrule. so it would take time. More importantly, you'd need 2 new democratic justices to replace 2 republicans.
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 09:07:32 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
Especially in their younger years, many LGBTQ+ people have been known to engage in heterosexual sex, either to try to prove to themselves or others that they're straight. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't actually know, but it would make sense to me.
Post by: 8manpick on June 24, 2022, 09:08:33 PM
Post by: _33 on June 24, 2022, 09:13:18 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
Especially in their younger years, many LGBTQ+ people have been known to engage in heterosexual sex, either to try to prove to themselves or others that they're straight. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't actually know, but it would make sense to me.
Well, sure, a LGBT person could have an unwanted pregnancy. But effecting them at disproportionately higher rate than, you know, straight women. How?
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 09:16:38 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 09:18:15 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
Especially in their younger years, many LGBTQ+ people have been known to engage in heterosexual sex, either to try to prove to themselves or others that they're straight. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't actually know, but it would make sense to me.
Well, sure, a LGBT person could have an unwanted pregnancy. But effecting them at disproportionately higher rate than, you know, straight women. How?
Well if you're comparing unwanted pregnancies then I assume the proportion of straight women vs. LGBT is about even as far as wanting abortions. I just think the proportion of LGBT pregnancies that are "unwanted" is probably dramatically higher as compared to straight women.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 09:28:09 PM
_33 where are you going with this? Is the implication that the ACLU is just making crap up?
I think what he's trying to get at is if you're gay, you're obviously not having kids, and if you're a lesbian then you'd be most likely artificially inseminated (not always of course) so therefore how could the pregnancy be unwanted. Just trying to guess at it
Post by: cfbandyman on June 24, 2022, 09:34:41 PM
None of this is ever easy, and ever as clean cut as people like to make of it. Genetics, poverty, uncertainty, lack of education, and a system that doesn't support after the child is born.
Banning abortion only increases problems, it does not solve the issue.
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 09:39:21 PM
_33 where are you going with this? Is the implication that the ACLU is just making crap up?
It's important to take the time to see that both sides are flawed here.
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 09:44:16 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 09:47:04 PM
i don't think it's that, but it's fair to point out that it's a pretty stupid tweet by aclu...like i say, the mindless "everything bad affects every minority group disproportionately"...sure, that's usually true, but think for a half second before tweeting..._33 where are you going with this? Is the implication that the ACLU is just making crap up?
It's important to take the time to see that both sides are flawed here.
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 09:48:58 PM
FTR and I feel like I can speak on it since she broke the news officially on fb, but another key to this whole thing is this idea that so many abortions are because it was an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Sure there is that, but take my cousin, who very much wanted to have her baby but found out it had some pretty unfortunate genetic disorders that would make the kid deathly allergic to UV and high cancer rates. They very toughly decided to end it. Also FTR, they're catholic.
None of this is ever easy, and ever as clean cut as people like to make of it. Genetics, poverty, uncertainty, lack of education, and a system that doesn't support after the child is born.
Banning abortion only increases problems, it does not solve the issue.
the documentary After Tiller (on Prime and Tubi) is good on this (focusing on late term abortions)
Post by: catastrophe on June 24, 2022, 09:50:45 PM
FTR and I feel like I can speak on it since she broke the news officially on fb, but another key to this whole thing is this idea that so many abortions are because it was an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Sure there is that, but take my cousin, who very much wanted to have her baby but found out it had some pretty unfortunate genetic disorders that would make the kid deathly allergic to UV and high cancer rates. They very toughly decided to end it. Also FTR, they're catholic.That’s always how it goes. It’s impossible for people to understand the other side of the issue until they’re in that position or someone close to them is.
None of this is ever easy, and ever as clean cut as people like to make of it. Genetics, poverty, uncertainty, lack of education, and a system that doesn't support after the child is born.
Banning abortion only increases problems, it does not solve the issue.
Post by: 8manpick on June 24, 2022, 09:57:37 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2022, 09:59:25 PM
I had forgotten about the court packing option. No longer seems so crazy.
lol are you serious? This was the end goal with mitch blocking Garland. We've seen this coming down the pipe for years. The democrats are toothless fools. They'll continue to let the republicans beat their rough ridin' asses by playing dirty.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2022, 10:00:41 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.
Post by: sys on June 24, 2022, 10:02:20 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
yeah it's such a rote thing to say nowadays (that XXX minority group is disparately impacted) that i think it just kind of slipped in...no way it's right
i've seen it defended on twitter. according to the sourcing there, it's apparently based on a study that found that among lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men and heterosexual women that had heterosexual sex, the lgtbq individuals were more likely to have had an unwanted pregnancy.
Post by: 8manpick on June 24, 2022, 10:05:25 PM
ThisTrav 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.
Post by: sys on June 24, 2022, 10:08:10 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 10:10:47 PM
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
yeah it's such a rote thing to say nowadays (that XXX minority group is disparately impacted) that i think it just kind of slipped in...no way it's right
i've seen it defended on twitter. according to the sourcing there, it's apparently based on a study that found that among lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men and heterosexual women that had heterosexual sex, the lgtbq individuals were more likely to have had an unwanted pregnancy.
ok, but the tweet says "lgtbq individuals" not "lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men"...plus even for the "lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men vs heterosexual women" thing, u probably have to say like "per sexual encounter."
Post by: sys on June 24, 2022, 10:13:42 PM
ok, but the tweet says "lgtbq individuals" not "lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men"...plus even for the "lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men vs heterosexual women" thing, u probably have to say like "per sexual encounter."
yeah, it's a stupid tweet.
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 10:13:55 PM
i've seen a lot of talk about a federal legislative replacement for roe (or conversely a federal abortion ban), and i'd appreciate it if any of the lawyers who blog here can comment on what authority the federal govt would have for either.
you could probably stretch the 14th amendment (equal protection to codify roe and due process for fetuses to ban abortion nationwide) and/or the commerce clause to cover either...but remember, the federal government has authority if SCOTUS says they do, which, as we see, depends heavily on who the justices are....
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 10:14:20 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 24, 2022, 10:15:39 PM
i've seen a lot of talk about a federal legislative replacement for roe (or conversely a federal abortion ban), and i'd appreciate it if any of the lawyers who blog here can comment on what authority the federal govt would have for either.
Depends on whether such a law supports abortion rights or bans them, frankly.
Post by: sys 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?
Post by: chum1 on June 24, 2022, 10:25:59 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 24, 2022, 10:35:06 PM
Post by: Spracne 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?
Post by: sys 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.
Post by: Spracne 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.
Post by: OK_Cat on June 24, 2022, 10:45:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 10:48:52 PM
I was just sharing the message for the people asking. My lordThisTrav 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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: _33 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.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 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 soonYou’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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 10:53:17 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on June 24, 2022, 10:58:08 PM
You need help, my man. Put down the bottle for a while.Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soonYou’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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sys 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.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 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 babiesThere’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
Post by: OK_Cat on June 24, 2022, 11:03:59 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 11:05:15 PM
Nah. Own the literal L and stop deflecting. You use to celebrate deaths on here and lost a bet and are roaming free.You need help, my man. Put down the bottle for a while.Don’t leave, spracne. Fanning is probably a 6er deep and will be coming on here with some genius takes soonYou’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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 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 problemYou caring about deaths all of a sudden has me on my heels!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 11:06:46 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 11:10:25 PM
What’s mutual sex?I can’t help you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wetwillie on June 24, 2022, 11:12:52 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 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
Post by: WildcatNkilt 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.
Post by: DQ12 on June 24, 2022, 11:23:28 PM
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?
Post by: _33 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.
Post by: WildcatNkilt 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.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 24, 2022, 11:41:54 PM
Wacky, leave goEMAW. It’s bad for you and you’re bad for it.It use to be fun, but everyone got old. 2016 really mumped these people up. You’re one of the few I’ll take advice from. Enjoy a Jose Peppers on me soon. Good night, sweet princes!
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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 24, 2022, 11:42:17 PM
What’s mutual sex?I can’t help you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You…you cant provide a meaning for a term you just said?
Post by: _33 on June 24, 2022, 11:45:59 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.
Of course I wish more people would foster and adopt. But arguing that abortion is necessary because of a strained foster care system is abhorrent to me.
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 11:52:13 PM
also, some of these "foster parents" seem to be doing it for the money (or worse)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 24, 2022, 11:53:41 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 24, 2022, 11:56:28 PM
Yep, they seem to be . . . but I can't offer any definitive or concrete proof of what I just said @dal9
for one, what about that nut lavoy finicum ... read up on how he was running his foster care operation
Post by: WildcatNkilt on June 24, 2022, 11:59:02 PM
Quote
For those of you who don’t know me well, I am a healthcare regulatory attorney and work in a hospital. I work in a state that has banned abortions at my hospital except those necessary to “save the life of the woman.” Let me explain how this works in practice.….
I get a call from a physician who tells me that our patient is 28 weeks pregnant and the fetus is dying from a naturally occurring condition. As the fetus dies, the woman’s body can quickly become infected and she can die as well. So, why are they calling me? Because in Missouri (in public facilities), if there is still a heartbeat, it is considered an abortion to terminate the pregnancy. So, the question becomes…is the woman close enough to dying to justify the abortion.
Let me repeat that: me, a lawyer, has to help a trained physician make the decision of whether their patient is near enough to death (under the law) for them to take action that is agreed to by the patient (and often their spouse).
I can’t tell you how messed up this is. This is what we were already dealing with. Missouri’s new trigger ban resulting from the fall of Roe has made things even worse. These are women who did not plan to terminate their pregnancy. They are wives, mothers, sisters, and employees who are dealing with a tremendously difficult situation. Their lives are risked by delaying life saving care.
And, under the heartbeat rules (now standard in several states), there is serious question about whether an ectopic pregnancy can be treated before the Fallopian tube ruptures (a life threatening condition).
Here is my point to this story. The government is incapable of drafting legislation that can cover all of the nuances of human reproduction. Anytime they venture to ban abortion, there are severe consequences to women and their families. People will die. People will end up in jail for miscarriages that were out of their control.
Government simply does not belong in these private places. Always remember that the government that can prevent you from having an abortion is the same government that can force you to have one. It is also the same government that can ban contraception, or force you to have medical care you don’t want in order to “save your life.”
I will not support a candidate who believes their place is with me, in my doctor’s office.
I will not support candidates who believe the most important thing for the government to do is to control the life and livelihoods of people who can bear children.
For my Kansas friends, we MUST vote in this August’s primary. If you are registered, you can vote regardless of party affiliation. Vote on August 2nd to STOP THE BAN!!
I’ve known this woman for a long time, but didn’t exactly know what she did as an attorney at the hospital she works. This is absolutely nuts to me. Can you imagine your wife or daughter falling ill and needing a medical procedure the state has to approve? Mind blowing.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 24, 2022, 11:59:29 PM
Yep, they seem to be . . . but I can't offer any definitive or concrete proof of what I just said @dal9
for one, what about that nut lavoy finicum ... read up on how he was running his foster care operation
What percentage of foster parents does that cover?
Post by: DQ12 on June 25, 2022, 12:04:01 AM
That said, I don’t think “their lives are extremely likely to be difficult” justifies killing/aborting them. I may have misunderstood kilt’s point so apologies if i strawmanned.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 25, 2022, 12:10:30 AM
But those that advocate for anytime, anywhere abortion are a particularly evil sort, IMO.
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 12:42:42 AM
I still buy cars bigger than a 4 cylinder, consume fast food and fast fashion, and am an early adopter of tech. I probably kill more people than a dozen women who would desire an abortion after being raped.
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 12:44:49 AM
I think, on the whole, our country does a pretty rotten job of caring for these unfortunate children, and I think we ought to do better (though props to _33 - who knew).
That said, I don’t think “their lives are extremely likely to be difficult” justifies killing/aborting them. I may have misunderstood kilt’s point so apologies if i strawmanned.
"likely to be difficult" is an understatement in many cases, imo
If we committed to a UBI and adequately funded services to meet all children's basic needs then I think you'd see the pendulum swing to most people supporting restrictions on abortions (subject to instances where the mother's health is in jeopardy). We're not even close to that. There are wayyyyyyyyy too many conservatives who would be happier letting other people's children suffer their whole lives (and judge them and their shitty children) than allow for an abortion at 10 weeks.
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 12:44:51 AM
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 12:45:46 AM
Post by: DQ12 on June 25, 2022, 12:55:35 AM
To be fair, I said “extremely likely to be difficult” and what I really meant was, these kids have a tough shot at making something of themselves. But some do. And even if they didn’t, I don’t think they’d be better off dead. I recognize that my point depends on them actually being worth keeping alive in the womb, and I bet that’s where we actually disagree.I think, on the whole, our country does a pretty rotten job of caring for these unfortunate children, and I think we ought to do better (though props to _33 - who knew).
That said, I don’t think “their lives are extremely likely to be difficult” justifies killing/aborting them. I may have misunderstood kilt’s point so apologies if i strawmanned.
"likely to be difficult" is an understatement in many cases, imo
If we committed to a UBI and adequately funded services to meet all children's basic needs then I think you'd see the pendulum swing to most people supporting restrictions on abortions (subject to instances where the mother's health is in jeopardy). We're not even close to that. There are wayyyyyyyyy too many conservatives who would be happier letting other people's children suffer their whole lives (and judge them and their shitty children) than allow for an abortion at 10 weeks.
But common ground on “let’s help them out more than we currently are.”
Post by: wetwillie on June 25, 2022, 06:16:08 AM
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png (https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png)
Post by: michigancat on June 25, 2022, 06:59:51 AM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 25, 2022, 07:24:26 AM
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.
Bud, this institution has been a joke for years and we’ve been telling you that. I’m sorry this happened and I take no joy in it whatsoever, but at least you finally see the light (dark).
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 07:38:52 AM
Are there any, like conservative groups dancing in the streets or something anywhere in the country? I sure didn't see any of my conservative relatives or friends celebrating on social media. They were just kinda acting like nothing happened. Strange.I got a couple friends on my FB feed who have been saying things exactly like Wacky has here, but otherwise yes it hasn’t been a very triumphant tone.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 08:27:52 AM
My preference is to work on the demand side of the equation and I think for the most part the data says that has already been working itself out naturally. The trend of overall abortions has been trending down for decades, which means per capita less people are having abortions year over year. If you work on preventing unwanted pregnancies you also solve for lowering abortion rates.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png (https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png)
And I've been on this train for a long, long time. The goal for everyone should be 0, know that it can't be zero, but try our best to have it be 0.
In a perfect world we live in a place where my cousin can still do what she did while also knowing that is the fewer times that happens because we have awesome sex ed, access to contraception (which yikes Thomas), and reasons to not send parents and kids to the poor house. The rate would keep falling to a point no one would care about it anymore.
This decision just opens to the door to more tomfuckery and takes those steps back.
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 09:04:26 AM
Are there any, like conservative groups dancing in the streets or something anywhere in the country? I sure didn't see any of my conservative relatives or friends celebrating on social media. They were just kinda acting like nothing happened. Strange.
Apart from religious zealots, no. Hopefully this means their base is less mobilized and it fucks them hard in the next election.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 09:07:33 AM
Are there any, like conservative groups dancing in the streets or something anywhere in the country? I sure didn't see any of my conservative relatives or friends celebrating on social media. They were just kinda acting like nothing happened. Strange.
Apart from religious zealots, no. Hopefully this means their base is less mobilized and it fucks them hard in the next election.
Yeah, only a few I saw were saying anything about it.
I am genuinely curious if this emboldens or dampens them. August 2 might show that
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:08:56 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 09:33:24 AM
People who are LGBTQ face higher rates of sexual assault.https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1524431029473316866
yeah it's such a rote thing to say nowadays (that XXX minority group is disparately impacted) that i think it just kind of slipped in...no way it's right
i've seen it defended on twitter. according to the sourcing there, it's apparently based on a study that found that among lgtbq individuals that had heterosexual sex with men and heterosexual women that had heterosexual sex, the lgtbq individuals were more likely to have had an unwanted pregnancy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 09:51:56 AM
I agree with all this, and I think it should absolutely be the position of anyone who calls themselves pro life. It’s a borderline insane position to argue women are actively seeking abortions to get ahead in this world.My preference is to work on the demand side of the equation and I think for the most part the data says that has already been working itself out naturally. The trend of overall abortions has been trending down for decades, which means per capita less people are having abortions year over year. If you work on preventing unwanted pregnancies you also solve for lowering abortion rates.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png (https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-550.png)
And I've been on this train for a long, long time. The goal for everyone should be 0, know that it can't be zero, but try our best to have it be 0.
In a perfect world we live in a place where my cousin can still do what she did while also knowing that is the fewer times that happens because we have awesome sex ed, access to contraception (which yikes Thomas), and reasons to not send parents and kids to the poor house. The rate would keep falling to a point no one would care about it anymore.
This decision just opens to the door to more tomfuckery and takes those steps back.
This isn’t like criminalizing embezzlement, insider trading, or murder. You would be criminalizing an incredibly difficult solution to a problem that is largely preventable. But rather than focus on prevention so many groups have been laser focused on placing the burden on the women themselves.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 10:06:46 AM
Post by: kim carnes on June 25, 2022, 10:07:36 AM
Are there any, like conservative groups dancing in the streets or something anywhere in the country? I sure didn't see any of my conservative relatives or friends celebrating on social media. They were just kinda acting like nothing happened. Strange.
Makes sense bc abortions will still be happening in very high numbers
Post by: wetwillie on June 25, 2022, 10:09:52 AM
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 10:12:24 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: star seed 7 on June 25, 2022, 10:32:03 AM
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 10:37:59 AM
It sounds like scientists are getting really close to a male birth control that doesn’t inhibit testosterone and works in retinoic acid receptors. This would definitely help make a dent in unwanted pregnancies.I think we should pass a law that rapists should have to take this drug.
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
Did we survive the night of rage?Dax, please check in as safe
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:52:14 AM
Did we survive the night of rage?Nope. BAC is still going. He’s an angry elf.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 11:08:02 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 11:12:37 AM
https://twitter.com/cwt_news/status/1540514313491943428?s=21&t=ThatC1OrlmKUF_ZGW2ci2A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 25, 2022, 11:29:42 AM
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 11:33:44 AM
The outright mourning from magas that no churches got burned is a weird ass phenomenon
They want(ed) it sooooo bad
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 11:52:09 AM
If you filled up BSFS with pregnant (white) women…statistically speaking 9 of them are going to die from complications related to their pregnancy. For black women, double it. To me that is more than enough reason that people should have this available as an option. I sure as crap hope I never need a root canal, and I would never get one just for shits and giggs, but I am very thankful that routine, safe medical procedure is available to me if I need it
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 11:57:05 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 12:05:13 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 12:19:25 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 12:20:41 PM
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306
Post by: wiley on June 25, 2022, 12:21:00 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1540339085230968834
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 12:52:18 PM
So much laziness in that table
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 25, 2022, 12:52:35 PM
My wife and I spent over $50,000 to be able to have a child. We value life. Stop 1%’ing cases to try and prove your point. Most cases are due to carelessness/laziness and dumb people having sex. Mostly libs!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is rough ridin' hilarious. You know this ruling will very likely make IVF illegal in many, many states, right? Did you not know that, or are you just going to be an enormous hypocrite?
Post by: dal9 on June 25, 2022, 12:54:30 PM
the bigots have been emboldened by their newfound political court. quiet part finally out from behind the curtain.
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306
what he's actually trying to say here is that Brown also overruled Plessy after ~50 years, and that was good. obviously a confusing way to put it.
Post by: wetwillie on June 25, 2022, 12:58:06 PM
1950s here we come!
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1540339085230968834
Banning contraception and Outlawing abortion is certainly one way to grow the party’s base
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 01:03:04 PM
the bigots have been emboldened by their newfound political court. quiet part finally out from behind the curtain.
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306
what he's actually trying to say here is that Brown also overruled Plessy after ~50 years, and that was good. obviously a confusing way to put it.
The irony being though one improved rights, the other decreased it
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 25, 2022, 01:03:42 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 01:06:17 PM
1950s here we come!
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1540339085230968834
Banning contraception and Outlawing abortion is certainly one way to grow the party’s base
And STD counts
Also, good to read the rest of this anyways under the discussion (TLDR to put here)
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
This stood out to me:
Quote
In light of the public debate over the morality of abortion, it is notable that the women in our survey emphasized their conscious examination of the moral aspects of their decisions. Although some described abortion as sinful and wrong, many of those same women, and others, described the indiscriminate bearing of children as a sin, and their abortion as "the right thing" and "a responsible choice." Respondents often acknowledged the complexity of the decision, and described an intense and difficult process of deciding to have an abortion, which took into account the moral weight of their responsibilities to their families, themselves and children they might have in the future.
In the in-depth interviews, the language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired; instead, these women were deciding not to have a child at this time. Facing unintended pregnancies, they clearly understood the implications of having a child (most of them firsthand) and were aware of their options. They saw not having a child as their best (and sometimes only) option.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 25, 2022, 01:14:30 PM
My wife and I spent over $50,000 to be able to have a child. We value life. Stop 1%’ing cases to try and prove your point. Most cases are due to carelessness/laziness and dumb people having sex. Mostly libs!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the $50k was for IVF, then you had at least one abortion.
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 01:21:02 PM
My wife and I spent over $50,000 to be able to have a child. We value life. Stop 1%’ing cases to try and prove your point. Most cases are due to carelessness/laziness and dumb people having sex. Mostly libs!How many babies died so you guys could have 1?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 01:28:44 PM
This is probably a question geared more towards people who have a background in medicine or law. But I’ve read in the past that Eugenics/IVF could run into issues if roe v wade were ever overturned. Is that a legitimate concern or more of a “in extreme cases someone will put a bill out that will never pass because it contains language banning IVF”I’m not all that familiar with history of laws governing IVF, but I don’t think Roe ever really stood in the way of banning IVF. So I don’t see what difference it would make unless an anti-abortion bill is so sweeping that they accidentally ban IVF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 01:39:10 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wiley on June 25, 2022, 01:39:29 PM
Here’s an excerpt from a wired magazine article:This is probably a question geared more towards people who have a background in medicine or law. But I’ve read in the past that Eugenics/IVF could run into issues if roe v wade were ever overturned. Is that a legitimate concern or more of a “in extreme cases someone will put a bill out that will never pass because it contains language banning IVF”I’m not all that familiar with history of laws governing IVF, but I don’t think Roe ever really stood in the way of banning IVF. So I don’t see what difference it would make unless an anti-abortion bill is so sweeping that they accidentally ban IVF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“The most immediate concern, says Sean Tipton, chief advocacy, policy, and development officer of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, is that a lot of states use language in their laws that would give legal and constitutional status to the fertilized egg should Roe be overturned. At the moment, 13 states in the US have “trigger” laws in place that would ban all or nearly all abortions immediately or very quickly if Roe were overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights advocacy and research group. In many of these laws, life is defined as beginning at the moment of fertilization, although the exact language differs from state to state.
By this definition, any procedure involving the destruction of a fertilized egg is at risk of being outlawed if Roe v. Wade is overturned—a fertilized egg would theoretically hold the same rights as a kindergartner. This is the manifestation of the “personhood” movement, propagated by pro-lifers, which seeks to define fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as people with equal protections under the law. “It is a clear and present danger to all forms of reproductive health care,” Tipton says.
https://www.wired.com/story/ramifications-of-post-roe-world/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 01:46:16 PM
Post by: wiley on June 25, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Yeah that makes sense. Seems like it would be incidental to me. Again unless there is already a federal law in place I think states could have banned IVF if they wanted regardless of Roe.I think ultimately the concern boils down to those writing the laws are not focusing on the language impacting IVF, but “life starts at”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 01:58:40 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on June 25, 2022, 02:16:43 PM
This thread has not disappointedWhat do you like about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:24:16 PM
This thread has not disappointedeff no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:24:52 PM
I imagine that a state could pass a law that says life begins at conceptionI fully expect it to happen in many states. Maybe most.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 02:26:04 PM
Wacky!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:27:55 PM
It totally removed the only roadblock for “life begins at conception laws.” Previously those laws were unconstitutional because they would have prevented access to constitutionally protected righty of abortion…that right is gone. Warm up the “life begins at conception” bills in like half the rough ridin' states or more.This is probably a question geared more towards people who have a background in medicine or law. But I’ve read in the past that Eugenics/IVF could run into issues if roe v wade were ever overturned. Is that a legitimate concern or more of a “in extreme cases someone will put a bill out that will never pass because it contains language banning IVF”I’m not all that familiar with history of laws governing IVF, but I don’t think Roe ever really stood in the way of banning IVF. So I don’t see what difference it would make unless an anti-abortion bill is so sweeping that they accidentally ban IVF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:29:56 PM
You will probably only be able to do IVF in blue states.
I just hope that blue states outlaw IVF treatment for out of state citizens.
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:35:32 PM
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 02:38:51 PM
Husband: what’s the bad news?
Doctor: your wife and kid are gonna both die
Husband: that is bad. What is the good news?
Doctor: stuck it to the libs (high fives Husband)
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 02:45:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 03:34:04 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
Apparently Jewish groups are ready to sue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dal9 on June 25, 2022, 03:47:07 PM
Post by: kstater on June 25, 2022, 04:53:15 PM
Today I learnedThe mental gymnastics the 6 conservatives (minus Roberts) will have to do if this makes it all the way to them will be fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
Apparently Jewish groups are ready to sue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2022, 05:17:46 PM
No way they ever take a case even similar to that.Today I learnedThe mental gymnastics the 6 conservatives (minus Roberts) will have to do if this makes it all the way to them will be fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
Apparently Jewish groups are ready to sue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 25, 2022, 05:19:07 PM
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 05:36:12 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 25, 2022, 05:53:43 PM
Not much, you? Still amazed how many wacky can get to respond him. Also cire tirelessly searching Twitter for his next thought since he can’t come up with his own.This thread has not disappointedWhat do you like about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 05:59:15 PM
What do you take exception to?Not much, you? Still amazed how many wacky can get to respond him. Also cire tirelessly searching Twitter for his next thought since he can’t come up with his own.This thread has not disappointedWhat do you like about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 06:02:12 PM
What do you take exception to?Not much, you? Still amazed how many wacky can get to respond him. Also cire tirelessly searching Twitter for his next thought since he can’t come up with his own.This thread has not disappointedWhat do you like about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, you do sound a little super earthy/organic.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 25, 2022, 06:03:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 06:06:22 PM
Nothing, I just don’t believe you have the capacity to formulate your own thoughts to be honest.I think it’s a mistake to repeal roe and I think there’s a lot of unintended consequences to do so
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 06:11:57 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 07:21:44 PM
Waks dipped the hell out of here when he learned IVF is definitely baby killing under the new law. OpeWe did IUI 5 times. Sorry, I was at a friends doctorate graduation. Hell, yeah, tho! Let’s shame people who want to create life but can’t due to science!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 07:40:52 PM
So you killed four baby’s to have one in a science experiment rather than adopt or foster.Waks dipped the hell out of here when he learned IVF is definitely baby killing under the new law. OpeWe did IUI 5 times. Sorry, I was at a friends doctorate graduation. Hell, yeah, tho! Let’s shame people who want to create life but can’t due to science!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 07:43:44 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 07:46:32 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on June 25, 2022, 07:46:48 PM
Nothing, I just don’t believe you have the capacity to formulate your own thoughts to be honest.Did you formulate thoughts on Roe being overturned?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 07:51:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 07:54:57 PM
You know IUI isn’t IVF, right?I was thinking ivf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2022, 07:55:41 PM
You know IUI isn’t IVF, right?Do you have a problem with couples that do use IVF, even though fertilized embryos are discarded?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 07:56:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 25, 2022, 07:58:28 PM
I did, have you?Nothing, I just don’t believe you have the capacity to formulate your own thoughts to be honest.Did you formulate thoughts on Roe being overturned?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 08:00:08 PM
One she lost at week 28 due to some freak complication. It was awful, but the medical term was “aborting the fetus” which was not viable.
Wonder where she’d be if Kansas had a ban.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:03:54 PM
I’m not educated enough to have an opinion on the matter. Like most things, there’s silver linings. If you are raped and forced to have a baby, I think that’s mumped up. If you got drunk and knocked someone up tho, that’s on you. My biggest issue with it are the people acting like it should be a one stop shop for being careless. Wear a condom and pull out with a condom on. Speak to your partner if they’re on birth control too.You know IUI isn’t IVF, right?Do you have a problem with couples that do use IVF, even though fertilized embryos are discarded?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 08:08:47 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:09:09 PM
My wife feels differently on the matter than I do and I respect her opinions. My parents had my brother when they were 18. I’m happy they stuck with it. I might not be here today if they didn’t, which would probably be great for this board.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:09:49 PM
Some people drink to excess and make bad choices. We should ban all alcohol consumptionYou’re really too emotional sometimes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 08:19:44 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 08:22:04 PM
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 08:29:04 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:32:39 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 08:33:31 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
Have you seen our states?
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 08:37:07 PM
People who are ok with someone pregnant to have an abortion 3 months in and beyond is what really bothers me. crap or get off the pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like my cousin finding out at 20 weeks about the genetic issues?
Like I get in general what you're driving at, but once again it's far more nuanced than that.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 25, 2022, 08:37:48 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 08:38:49 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree!
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:48:43 PM
I get that perspective too and I also understand those types of situations. My wife is very upset about the recent turn of events too, but I had a few scares with my HS sweetheart (just 10-12 days past her period) and I was ready to accept responsibility for whatever the turnout was. She was also on birth control and I wore condoms and pulled out. Health classes do wonders for people who want to learn how not to get pregnant. That’s why I’m annoyed by the people who are acting like the people who get early pregnancies don’t know the consequences of having sex.People who are ok with someone pregnant to have an abortion 3 months in and beyond is what really bothers me. crap or get off the pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like my cousin finding out at 20 weeks about the genetic issues?
Like I get in general what you're driving at, but once again it's far more nuanced than that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 08:52:29 PM
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 08:55:14 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 08:57:13 PM
feel this way about the issue tho, because my parents sacrificed their lives to have my brother at 18. The return was worth it, but I know the struggle was real.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 25, 2022, 08:59:03 PM
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 08:59:47 PM
IYour parents made a choice
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here’s a post from a good friend
I am a flood of emotions this morning. What was supposed to be a walk with my daughter ended up in an ANGRY, sweaty, crying run.
At 19, I chose to have an abortion.
Why is none of your business but the fact that I had the freedom to make a deeply personal choice for my own body and life makes yesterdays decision extremely triggering for myself and many, many other women.
Would I have finished college?
Would I have had to leverage additional government programs other than the food stamps I was already on?
Would I have gone on to have all the amazing, worldly experiences, careers and children that I do today?
1 in 4 women have an abortion today. What will happen to these women now? What will their futures look like without choice? I don’t share this to argue. Quite frankly, I will never agree with the pro-life “rationale” - I’ve worked in healthcare and with vulnerable populations for far too long (and if you haven’t, I invite you to go educate yourself). I share to inspire you - man or woman, right or left - our work has just begun. This issue will dominate our lives and our children’s lives for many, many years ahead.
But this promise I make - to my own children, - I will always fight for you, your freedoms and your right to choose who you love and what you do with your bodies.
Today we grieve, then we fight like hell.
#RiseUp
#1in4
#youknowme
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:10:18 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe in God.
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 09:13:35 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree!
maybe log off joe rogan or whoever you're currently
:sdeek:
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 09:14:46 PM
A libertarian that is also anti abortionSo many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe in God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 09:16:01 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 09:19:27 PM
When I was a younger man I had mutual sex with my wife. Prior to our mutual sex we both took STD tests which came back clean....makes sense, we both saved ourselves for marriage like good Christians. Even still, I wore 2 total condoms…one over my dong and then I put on full body radiation suit and then the second condom went on over that. Anyway, afterwards I ended up contracting a (treatable) STD, but I have chosen to live with it even though it could easily be treated with safe and effective antibiotics but I think it serves as a necessary reminder for my reckless sexual behavior even if it ruins my life or literally kills me
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.GyKLXeJETlc6Qk-07ObCFgHaD4?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 09:21:17 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:24:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:24:16 PM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree!
maybe log off joe rogan or whoever you're currently
:sdeek:
Body blow!
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 09:25:06 PM
...she never told me she filmed it. This is humiliating
By the way, I understood and appreciated the subtlety of your prior post.
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:26:05 PM
A libertarian that is also anti abortionSo many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe in God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The less federal oversight the better. The State is the enemy of the people. Monopoly on violence. Armed thugs.
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:28:08 PM
A place to talk/yell about Supreme Court cases.
A split off the parent thread:I think it's inevitable that Roe and Obergefell (among a lot more "liberal" decisions) will be overturned very soon.
And I simply do not think that. In fact, I find the suggestion silly.I guess we'll see.
I guess so!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-set-dive-mississippi-abortion-case-challenging-roe-v-n1285114
Looks like it might be time to see. Roe is going down.
I mean, wow. Srs
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 09:29:40 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:31:00 PM
BAC, are you ok?I’m sure you are the kind of people to hate someone with opposing views, because you have it all figured out, but my word… Fight the air at this point. It’s the goddamn pit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wiley on June 25, 2022, 09:31:59 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220626/fe0670eba43f4c2f5e9f2b1ff57f0fa1.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Trim on June 25, 2022, 09:34:04 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on June 25, 2022, 09:35:34 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:36:55 PM
BAC, are you ok?I’m sure you are the kind of people to hate someone with opposing views, because you have it all figured out, but my word… Fight the air at this point. It’s the goddamn pit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m confused
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:38:03 PM
Just remember:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220626/fe0670eba43f4c2f5e9f2b1ff57f0fa1.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s some pussy-hat-wearing crap to post.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:38:54 PM
I bet there are plenty of dudes out there who had unprotected sex before or after they drunkenly pissed on a pile of clean clothes. Eat crap, those guys!You’re. Trying. Too. Hard!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 09:39:49 PM
I should be awarded a retroactive A for con law.
I admit I was a fool for believing SCOTUS (and Art. III courts) were an independent institution and that stare decisis meant something. It's been jarring, but sometimes a person has to admit they were wrong. And I got the highest A+'s in both my con law classes, at that. Guess I was too close to the trees to see the forest.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:40:20 PM
This was an @ at BAC.BAC, are you ok?I’m sure you are the kind of people to hate someone with opposing views, because you have it all figured out, but my word… Fight the air at this point. It’s the goddamn pit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m confused
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 09:45:36 PM
...she never told me she filmed it. This is humiliating
By the way, I understood and appreciated the subtlety of your prior post.
I remember it so vividly bc it happened on election day 2020
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 09:46:54 PM
https://twitter.com/simplyabi242/status/1540485239646085122?s=21&t=EbIahj6sRPfrSkQpWFTGhw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dal9 on June 25, 2022, 09:51:50 PM
https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753
this really might be a "dog that caught the car" moment for GOP/anti-abortioners
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 09:55:56 PM
when u've lost dave portnoy...Jewish
https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753
this really might be a "dog that caught the car" moment for GOP/anti-abortioners
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2022, 09:56:09 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 25, 2022, 09:56:15 PM
I'm not sure where people get the idea that other people who wanted to keep Roe were all in favor of "abortion on demand." The polling data overwhelmingly supported upholding Roe, while at the same time, the data also showed that a majority of Americans were in favor of *some* restrictions on abortion. That's exactly what the framework was under Roe. Hate that I have to use past tense verbs, here. 1% of abortions take (took?) place after the approximate point of viability. I would bet my bottom dollar that the vast majority of that 1% is due to really terrible medical complications. There was never any good reason to demonize women seeking abortions or call them "baby killers."
And yet, one party made political hay doing exactly that, demonizing these women and calling them baby killers, even when tons of them actually didn’t believe it IRL. Hmm. Will any of these moderate republicans who supposedly abhor the overturning of Row actually vote for a Democrat in November? No, no they will not.
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 09:56:49 PM
when u've lost dave portnoy...
https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753
this really might be a "dog that caught the car" moment for GOP/anti-abortioners
Is it better to have lost a Portnoy, or to have gained one?
Post by: wiley on June 25, 2022, 09:58:04 PM
Lofl, so you think elected officials at the local, state and federal level will all follow the rules they ask us to follow. Just like stay home, wear a face covering in public, while they were out at big fundraisers maskless? That meme should’ve also included they’ll pay for it with your taxes.Just remember:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220626/fe0670eba43f4c2f5e9f2b1ff57f0fa1.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s some pussy-hat-wearing crap to post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 25, 2022, 09:58:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:00:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 10:01:17 PM
when u've lost dave portnoy...
https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753
this really might be a "dog that caught the car" moment for GOP/anti-abortioners
Wow. I cannot believe that David Portnoy and I agree. Hopefully that message is impactful to his audience.
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 10:01:38 PM
Lofl, so you think elected officials at the local, state and federal level will all follow the rules they ask us to follow. Just like stay home, wear a face covering in public, while they were out at big fundraisers maskless? That meme should’ve also included they’ll pay for it with your taxes.Just remember:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220626/fe0670eba43f4c2f5e9f2b1ff57f0fa1.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s some pussy-hat-wearing crap to post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh no. Not at all. It’s always rules for thee but not for me. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 25, 2022, 10:02:42 PM
Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And enlighten me exactly how Obama/Biden could have changed the Supreme Court given the current numbers and nuances of the senate. I’m all ears.
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 10:02:49 PM
when u've lost dave portnoy...
https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753
this really might be a "dog that caught the car" moment for GOP/anti-abortioners
Wow. I cannot believe that David Portnoy and I agree. Hopefully that message is impactful to his audience.
Portnoy and Rogan… left again!
Post by: nicname on June 25, 2022, 10:03:45 PM
Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:09:40 PM
Not Biden. Not Trump. I hate this question, because Dems ran with it when they had a great economy in front of them and chose to ignore it for less mean tweets. They literally don’t speak about the WRPOAT and think everything is fine. Or try to act like it.Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 10:11:23 PM
The position was that the government had to eff off when it comes to your health.A libertarian that is also anti abortionSo many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe in God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The less federal oversight the better. The State is the enemy of the people. Monopoly on violence. Armed thugs.
That has changed so that now government can in fact eff when it comes to your health.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 25, 2022, 10:14:03 PM
Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And enlighten me exactly how Obama/Biden could have changed the Supreme Court given the current numbers and nuances of the senate. I’m all ears.
Pack a lunch SB and I hope you enjoy eating crow bc you're about to be taken to school by someone who definitely knows what hes talking about. Embarrassed for you in advance
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:14:32 PM
Biden uses cue cards now to speak. If it was Trump doing that, holy meltdown city USANot Biden. Not Trump. I hate this question, because Dems ran with it when they had a great economy in front of them and chose to ignore it for less mean tweets. They literally don’t speak about the WRPOAT and think everything is fine. Or try to act like it.Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:18:05 PM
Get RBG to retire and find a replacement under their realm, I don’t know tho. I might be crazy!Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And enlighten me exactly how Obama/Biden could have changed the Supreme Court given the current numbers and nuances of the senate. I’m all ears.
Pack a lunch SB and I hope you enjoy eating crow bc you're about to be taken to school by someone who definitely knows what hes talking about. Embarrassed for you in advance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 10:33:44 PM
Can’t wait for the Catholic civil war
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dal9 on June 25, 2022, 10:38:26 PM
Not Biden. Not Trump. I hate this question, because Dems ran with it when they had a great economy in front of them and chose to ignore it for less mean tweets. They literally don’t speak about the WRPOAT and think everything is fine. Or try to act like it.Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
just because u are nearly broke after spending $50K defying God's Will doesn't mean that the Economy is the only issue that matters to everyone else
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 10:40:07 PM
https://twitter.com/yahoonews/status/1540831492188020736?s=21&t=FNZ8NZivo2D_dYuZ0anWzw
Can’t wait for the Catholic civil war
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My mom already started calling him Poop Francis after the first libtard thing he said. Can't remember what it was, but it was probably about accepting gays and/or immigrants.
Post by: dal9 on June 25, 2022, 10:40:15 PM
Get RBG to retire and find a replacement under their realm, I don’t know tho. I might be crazy!Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And enlighten me exactly how Obama/Biden could have changed the Supreme Court given the current numbers and nuances of the senate. I’m all ears.
Pack a lunch SB and I hope you enjoy eating crow bc you're about to be taken to school by someone who definitely knows what hes talking about. Embarrassed for you in advance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well that seems simple enough...crazy some of the best political minds in the nation didn't think of that for 3+ years
Post by: Cire on June 25, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
lolhttps://twitter.com/yahoonews/status/1540831492188020736?s=21&t=FNZ8NZivo2D_dYuZ0anWzw
Can’t wait for the Catholic civil war
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My mom already started calling him Poop Francis after the first libtard thing he said. Can't remember what it was, but it was probably about accepting gays and/or immigrants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:50:05 PM
JFCNot Biden. Not Trump. I hate this question, because Dems ran with it when they had a great economy in front of them and chose to ignore it for less mean tweets. They literally don’t speak about the WRPOAT and think everything is fine. Or try to act like it.Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
just because u are nearly broke after spending $50K defying God's Will doesn't mean that the Economy is the only issue that matters to everyone else
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 25, 2022, 10:51:21 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 10:51:26 PM
They had an easy layup and chose to pass. Sorry!Get RBG to retire and find a replacement under their realm, I don’t know tho. I might be crazy!Nobody is voting Democrat in November. We’re going through the worst economy oat and Biden/Obama had a chance to change the Supreme Court, but chose against it. Why do you think voting is the answer? It’s far from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And enlighten me exactly how Obama/Biden could have changed the Supreme Court given the current numbers and nuances of the senate. I’m all ears.
Pack a lunch SB and I hope you enjoy eating crow bc you're about to be taken to school by someone who definitely knows what hes talking about. Embarrassed for you in advance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well that seems simple enough...crazy some of the best political minds in the nation didn't think of that for 3+ years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 25, 2022, 11:02:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: cfbandyman on June 26, 2022, 09:02:55 AM
https://twitter.com/yahoonews/status/1540831492188020736?s=21&t=FNZ8NZivo2D_dYuZ0anWzw
Can’t wait for the Catholic civil war
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My mom already started calling him Poop Francis after the first libtard thing he said. Can't remember what it was, but it was probably about accepting gays and/or immigrants.
There are a few Catholics I know that hate Francis, I'm glad my mom left the Church a long time ago (she was always way too lib to handle the hardcore dogmatic stuff).
While were here, there are 3 types of Catholics imo, those who are hardcore, those who pay lip service to that hardcore but secretly hate the hardcore, and those both those two groups like to turn up their noses at (the black sheep of the church). Only 1 of those 3 groups (hardcore) was dancing Friday.
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 09:22:27 AM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 09:23:09 AM
https://twitter.com/yahoonews/status/1540831492188020736?s=21&t=FNZ8NZivo2D_dYuZ0anWzw
Can’t wait for the Catholic civil war
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My mom already started calling him Poop Francis after the first libtard thing he said. Can't remember what it was, but it was probably about accepting gays and/or immigrants.
There are a few Catholics I know that hate Francis, I'm glad my mom left the Church a long time ago (she was always way too lib to handle the hardcore dogmatic stuff).
While were here, there are 3 types of Catholics imo, those who are hardcore, those who pay lip service to that hardcore but secretly hate the hardcore, and those both those two groups like to turn up their noses at (the black sheep of the church). Only 1 of those 3 groups (hardcore) was dancing Friday.
Which of the 3 has the tee shirt Catholics? Typical indicators include:
*Notre Dame football fans bc, you know
*Devout observation of Lent (mostly bc they want some attention for their martyrdom)
*Knows all of the responses during mass and when to give them and is kind of smug about it
*Has not made double-digit appearances in church in any given 12 month period since they were kids (unless you count Catholic weddings, and they absolutely count them)
Post by: Pete on June 26, 2022, 09:32:09 AM
Post by: wiley on June 26, 2022, 09:35:46 AM
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled in Vega v. Tekoh today that a person cannot sue a police officer under federal civil rights laws for violating their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by failing to provide a Miranda warning
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wiley on June 26, 2022, 09:39:12 AM
I kinda hope Clarance Thomas does get them to readdress other cases. Piss off the entire left and center leaning conservatives. Get them all good and fired up.Hoping for the scorched earth approach?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 26, 2022, 09:44:53 AM
FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.Isn’t the thing that makes Catholics Catholic that they believe the pope is always right on matters of doctrine?
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 09:48:08 AM
Here’s another one that obviously isn’t getting the headlines as Roe v Wade, but more police protections?
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled in Vega v. Tekoh today that a person cannot sue a police officer under federal civil rights laws for violating their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by failing to provide a Miranda warning
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw that but I'm not sure I understand the implications. In criminal court if you are not mirandized then whatever you say is inadmissible but I'm not sure what sort of civil remedy you would seek. What damages are being sought?
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 09:49:58 AM
Post by: Pete on June 26, 2022, 10:05:12 AM
It’s the only way.I kinda hope Clarance Thomas does get them to readdress other cases. Piss off the entire left and center leaning conservatives. Get them all good and fired up.Hoping for the scorched earth approach?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 26, 2022, 10:07:24 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220626/6446a24608b98c68beb267c3710356d2.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 10:14:54 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 10:18:54 AM
Lol, no. Aside from your post being reductive about “what makes Catholics Catholic,” infallibility is a bit more complicated than that.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.Isn’t the thing that makes Catholics Catholic that they believe the pope is always right on matters of doctrine?
Post by: steve dave on June 26, 2022, 10:24:23 AM
Papal infallibilityFWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.Isn’t the thing that makes Catholics Catholic that they believe the pope is always right on matters of doctrine?
Post by: CNS on June 26, 2022, 10:25:00 AM
It’s the only way.I kinda hope Clarance Thomas does get them to readdress other cases. Piss off the entire left and center leaning conservatives. Get them all good and fired up.Hoping for the scorched earth approach?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trump was supposed to be about burning it down. Didn’t end up well.
Political chaos allows those with power and money to take advantage and strengthen their position. I am tired of emotion first politics. It’s been an exhausting run since trump won his first primary and our country is paying for it in the loss of important political norms, a hard shift of the Overton window in a crap ton of ways, and a complete miss on any actual legislation opportunity when we desperately need it on a bajillion fronts. We are all losing. Every single one of us. No one is governing any longer. We are all just kicking at each other’s balls.
Post by: CNS on June 26, 2022, 10:27:37 AM
FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.
You know what really rough ridin' sucks? The fact that anyone that isn’t catholic should have to be concerned in any single rough ridin' way what the rough ridin' pope thinks when it comes to governance, legislation, or judicial precedent while living in the country born of the need of religious freedom. That really rough ridin' sucks.
Post by: catastrophe on June 26, 2022, 10:43:35 AM
I don’t say that to be reductive. My understanding is that Catholics would be the same as Eastern Orthodox if they didn’t recognize the absolute authority of the pope.Lol, no. Aside from your post being reductive about “what makes Catholics Catholic,” infallibility is a bit more complicated than that.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.Isn’t the thing that makes Catholics Catholic that they believe the pope is always right on matters of doctrine?
Post by: Pete on June 26, 2022, 10:45:52 AM
Man, libs hate religion so hard!I think conservatives could learn a thing or two about spirituality and how it differs from religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on June 26, 2022, 10:56:02 AM
So many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
wow
Post by: MakeItRain on June 26, 2022, 11:09:35 AM
This girl is canceled now btw
https://twitter.com/simplyabi242/status/1540485239646085122?s=21&t=EbIahj6sRPfrSkQpWFTGhw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The tweet has 242,000 likes and she doesn't even live in the untied states.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 26, 2022, 11:10:26 AM
Man, libs hate religion so hard!I think conservatives could learn a thing or two about spirituality and how it differs from religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When a religion tells people who are not of their religion how they are to conduct themselves, it's a problem. Totally agree on the spirituality part. Dogma vs. more practical thinking about ones place within a church or group.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 26, 2022, 11:13:15 AM
A libertarian that is also anti abortionSo many issues would be better served without involving the federal government. It’s a great day for our republic.
This ain't one
Disagree! Based on my religious beliefs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe in God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The less federal oversight the better. The State is the enemy of the people. Monopoly on violence. Armed thugs.
You don't believe the first sentence, literally no one who lives in a democratic country does, it's not even remotely possible.
Your following sentences have nothing to do with your first one, nor does it have anything to do with the topic in this thread.
Post by: nicname on June 26, 2022, 11:18:20 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 26, 2022, 11:19:46 AM
I kinda hope Clarance Thomas does get them to readdress other cases. Piss off the entire left and center leaning conservatives. Get them all good and fired up.
There's only one center leaning conservative on the court and I don't even know if that's a fair descriptor of him, he's just the only conservative that isn't overtly political.
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 11:46:58 AM
Well when you live in a democracy you sometimes need to take an interest in things that influence the rest of the electorate.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.
You know what really rough ridin' sucks? The fact that anyone that isn’t catholic should have to be concerned in any single rough ridin' way what the rough ridin' pope thinks when it comes to governance, legislation, or judicial precedent while living in the country born of the need of religious freedom. That really rough ridin' sucks.
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 11:55:19 AM
ah yeah I guess if you’re specifically comparing Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodox, then yeah the authority/leadership of the Vatican is one of the primary differences, but it’s broader than the concept of infallibility.I don’t say that to be reductive. My understanding is that Catholics would be the same as Eastern Orthodox if they didn’t recognize the absolute authority of the pope.Lol, no. Aside from your post being reductive about “what makes Catholics Catholic,” infallibility is a bit more complicated than that.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.Isn’t the thing that makes Catholics Catholic that they believe the pope is always right on matters of doctrine?
Post by: Cire on June 26, 2022, 11:56:51 AM
Yes follow rules set forth by justices appointed by presidents who lost popular votesWell when you live in a democracy you sometimes need to take an interest in things that influence the rest of the electorate.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.
You know what really rough ridin' sucks? The fact that anyone that isn’t catholic should have to be concerned in any single rough ridin' way what the rough ridin' pope thinks when it comes to governance, legislation, or judicial precedent while living in the country born of the need of religious freedom. That really rough ridin' sucks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CNS on June 26, 2022, 11:57:48 AM
Well when you live in a democracy you sometimes need to take an interest in things that influence the rest of the electorate.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.
You know what really rough ridin' sucks? The fact that anyone that isn’t catholic should have to be concerned in any single rough ridin' way what the rough ridin' pope thinks when it comes to governance, legislation, or judicial precedent while living in the country born of the need of religious freedom. That really rough ridin' sucks.
That’s a cheap answer to a contradiction that the religious are somehow comfortable with.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 26, 2022, 12:09:34 PM
While I agree with your sentiment don’t paint that broad brush. I think most religious people would do well to take to heart the quote from ghandi. I like your Christ. I do not like your Christian’s. They are so unlike your Christ.Man, libs hate religion so hard!I think conservatives could learn a thing or two about spirituality and how it differs from religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 12:12:19 PM
I don’t understand how it’s cheap, nor do I understand what the contradiction is. It’s not as if the US was founded as a place free of any religious influence.Well when you live in a democracy you sometimes need to take an interest in things that influence the rest of the electorate.FWIW - I’m Catholic and, while I disagree with Pope Francis regarding some Catholic nerd stuff, I agree with the quotes from the article. The tweets make it sound like the Vatican is suggesting that Catholics ought to be concerned with the other issues to the exclusion of abortion - which is not how I read the quotes at all.
You know what really rough ridin' sucks? The fact that anyone that isn’t catholic should have to be concerned in any single rough ridin' way what the rough ridin' pope thinks when it comes to governance, legislation, or judicial precedent while living in the country born of the need of religious freedom. That really rough ridin' sucks.
That’s a cheap answer to a contradiction that the religious are somehow comfortable with.
If you don’t want to pay attention to electoral influences, then don’t.
Post by: chum1 on June 26, 2022, 12:12:30 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on June 26, 2022, 12:15:17 PM
While I agree with your sentiment don’t paint that broad brush. I think most religious people would do well to take to heart the quote from ghandi. I like your Christ. I do not like your Christian’s. They are so unlike your Christ.Man, libs hate religion so hard!I think conservatives could learn a thing or two about spirituality and how it differs from religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, totally forgot that quote. It's so goddamn true
Post by: Pete on June 26, 2022, 01:27:08 PM
That’s a wonderful quote.While I agree with your sentiment don’t paint that broad brush. I think most religious people would do well to take to heart the quote from ghandi. I like your Christ. I do not like your Christian’s. They are so unlike your Christ.Man, libs hate religion so hard!I think conservatives could learn a thing or two about spirituality and how it differs from religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 02:07:22 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 02:11:09 PM
https://twitter.com/edpaulbangura/status/1522373121701031936?s=21&t=-s671mLz3v7uXLHj7ZH37Q
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 02:16:38 PM
Agreed. I always thought Miranda was just an evidentiary issue. I haven’t read the opinion though.
§ 1983
Post by: dal9 on June 26, 2022, 02:45:46 PM
Agreed. I always thought Miranda was just an evidentiary issue. I haven’t read the opinion though.
§ 1983
i think they were asking what u could actually sue for if the evidence is thrown out.
the point is, sometimes the evidence is mistakenly admitted and a person spends time in prison, for which they could (previously) seek compensation (as in the case the Supreme Court heard)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 03:05:54 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 03:06:38 PM
Agreed. I always thought Miranda was just an evidentiary issue. I haven’t read the opinion though.
§ 1983
i think they were asking what u could actually sue for if the evidence is thrown out.
the point is, sometimes the evidence is mistakenly admitted and a person spends time in prison, for which they could (previously) seek compensation (as in the case the Supreme Court heard)
They = Dlew?
In that particular case, the evidence was admitted, though the defendant was acquitted, nonetheless.
I worked on § 1983 cases while clerking at the Solicitor General's office, and the injury can simply be the deprivation of an established right.
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your response, so please let me know if that's the case.
Post by: dal9 on June 26, 2022, 03:50:54 PM
Agreed. I always thought Miranda was just an evidentiary issue. I haven’t read the opinion though.
§ 1983
i think they were asking what u could actually sue for if the evidence is thrown out.
the point is, sometimes the evidence is mistakenly admitted and a person spends time in prison, for which they could (previously) seek compensation (as in the case the Supreme Court heard)
They = Dlew?
In that particular case, the evidence was admitted, though the defendant was acquitted, nonetheless.
I worked on § 1983 cases while clerking at the Solicitor General's office, and the injury can simply be the deprivation of an established right.
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your response, so please let me know if that's the case.
yeah that's what i meant.
i thought the guy spent time in prison in the case--must have misread or misremembered
but do people ever recover anything, under 1983, for deprivation of an established right if they can't point to concrete financial damages?
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 03:54:46 PM
Post by: 8manpick on June 26, 2022, 04:01:15 PM
My wife and I spent over $50,000 to be able to have a child. We value life. Stop 1%’ing cases to try and prove your point. Most cases are due to carelessness/laziness and dumb people having sex. Mostly libs!Speaking of 1%ing!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 26, 2022, 04:02:02 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 04:09:52 PM
Agreed. I always thought Miranda was just an evidentiary issue. I haven’t read the opinion though.
§ 1983
i think they were asking what u could actually sue for if the evidence is thrown out.
the point is, sometimes the evidence is mistakenly admitted and a person spends time in prison, for which they could (previously) seek compensation (as in the case the Supreme Court heard)
They = Dlew?
In that particular case, the evidence was admitted, though the defendant was acquitted, nonetheless.
I worked on § 1983 cases while clerking at the Solicitor General's office, and the injury can simply be the deprivation of an established right.
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your response, so please let me know if that's the case.
yeah that's what i meant.
i thought the guy spent time in prison in the case--must have misread or misremembered
but do people ever recover anything, under 1983, for deprivation of an established right if they can't point to concrete financial damages?
Economic damages are possible even when concrete injuries do not readily lend themselves to mathematical calculations. The deprivation of an established right is an injury per se. The measure of damages is up to the factfinder--a jury most likely, in a criminal case.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:11:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 8manpick on June 26, 2022, 04:14:17 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 26, 2022, 04:33:47 PM
Look, if you spent $50k to try and have a kid, you’re 1%ing, just own it. It’s fineOr, if you like, get an "early inheritance"
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 04:35:28 PM
Look, if you spent $50k to try and have a kid, you’re 1%ing, just own it. It’s fineOr, if you like, get an "early inheritance"
Bootstraps, you mean?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:38:33 PM
I really appreciate you all crap posting about creating life and ending it. #ExpertsLook, if you spent $50k to try and have a kid, you’re 1%ing, just own it. It’s fineOr, if you like, get an "early inheritance"
Bootstraps, you mean?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:41:28 PM
People who had college paid for, for their entire life checking in! Especially living in the two most expensive cities in the US. So shunned!Look, if you spent $50k to try and have a kid, you’re 1%ing, just own it. It’s fineOr, if you like, get an "early inheritance"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on June 26, 2022, 04:47:46 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 26, 2022, 04:49:44 PM
People who had college paid for, for their entire life checking in! Especially living in the two most expensive cities in the US. So shunned!Look, if you spent $50k to try and have a kid, you’re 1%ing, just own it. It’s fineOr, if you like, get an "early inheritance"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I'm pretty close to a 1%'er if not firmly entrenched. Still owe some student loans though because what's the rush?
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 04:51:24 PM
I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:52:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on June 26, 2022, 04:54:15 PM
We used my wife’s early inheritance to make it happen. Kinda not funny, guys! I’m disappointed in you two!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Imagine what kind of genetic stud/freak you must be for a woman to fork over that much cash to be impregnated by you. #King
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:56:08 PM
Please point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 04:57:18 PM
Exactly. Learn and work the system.We used my wife’s early inheritance to make it happen. Kinda not funny, guys! I’m disappointed in you two!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Imagine what kind of genetic stud/freak you must be for a woman to fork over that much cash to be impregnated by you. #King
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on June 26, 2022, 05:01:20 PM
Please point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think either of those examples are particularly rare
Post by: catastrophe on June 26, 2022, 05:06:49 PM
Here’s a link you wont read that I found in 10 seconds of searching that says Texas’s law could ban medication used to treat miscarriages:Please point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 05:26:51 PM
Please point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think either of those examples are particularly rare
Mich according to peer reviewed research1 over 99% of abortions are recreational. There have been less than 30 people worldwide for whom an abortion was medically necessary.
1. He saw a Facebook meme that he shared and some ppl liked his post
Post by: chum1 on June 26, 2022, 05:27:15 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 05:34:06 PM
You’re seriously weird, bud. Sorry you killed a human in your past life fePlease point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think either of those examples are particularly rare
Mich according to peer reviewed research1 over 99% of abortions are recreational. There have been less than 30 people worldwide for whom an abortion was medically necessary.
1. He saw a Facebook meme that he shared and some ppl liked his post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LickNeckey on June 26, 2022, 05:41:48 PM
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 05:52:33 PM
trying to catch up
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
I believe you have the measure of it, yes.
Post by: nicname on June 26, 2022, 05:55:56 PM
trying to catch up
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
To be fair I was admittedly drunken edgelording last night. Still, I’ve always leaned pretty hard into libertarianism when it comes to the fed gov. I did go full send for Bernie and later Tulsi in 2016/2020.
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 05:57:52 PM
trying to catch up
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
To be fair I was admittedly drunken edgelording last night. Still, I’ve always leaned pretty hard into libertarianism when it comes to the fed gov. I did go full send for Bernie and later Tulsi in 2016/2020.
I love and appreciate when you edgelord. :love:
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 06:03:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 06:08:29 PM
You need Zoloft, bud!Please point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think either of those examples are particularly rare
Mich according to peer reviewed research1 over 99% of abortions are recreational. There have been less than 30 people worldwide for whom an abortion was medically necessary.
1. He saw a Facebook meme that he shared and some ppl liked his post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 06:12:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 06:31:15 PM
You’re seriously weird, bud. Sorry you killed a human in your past life fePlease point out the people who don’t think rare cases shouldn’t be treated differently. Let’s point and laugh at them together, bud! I love the idiocy of acting like people are doing it.I know someone who was doing IVF and the pregnancy was ectopic and they needed to abort. It was really sad but good thing abortion was an option. (Because it would have killed her)
One of my best friends (in Kansas) boned his wife (raw dog; mutual sex tho) and got pregnant. They wanted the kid but suffered a miscarriage. Her doctor was reluctant to perform or refer a service because of the "age" of the fetus. She had to pass it at home. Imagine how traumatizing that is ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think either of those examples are particularly rare
Mich according to peer reviewed research1 over 99% of abortions are recreational. There have been less than 30 people worldwide for whom an abortion was medically necessary.
1. He saw a Facebook meme that he shared and some ppl liked his post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are enough layers of irony in this post it could cause haemochromatosis
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 06:38:57 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 06:58:02 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 26, 2022, 07:18:12 PM
(https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*r7U-lSTSJNN_rVVoM7fz7w.png)
Post by: LickNeckey on June 26, 2022, 07:20:03 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 07:22:37 PM
guy spent $50K cuz he couldnt figure out which hole to put it in and he's out here giving life advice smhYou can’t be this rough ridin' incentive/stupid, right? JFC, the lefties are a joke!
(https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*r7U-lSTSJNN_rVVoM7fz7w.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 07:24:42 PM
I understand that he married her for money but really don't understand her motivations...Spit in your hand more
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 26, 2022, 07:25:53 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 07:28:05 PM
guy spent $50K cuz he couldnt figure out which hole to put it in and he's out here giving life advice smhYou can’t be this rough ridin' incentive/stupid, right? JFC, the lefties are a joke!
(https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*r7U-lSTSJNN_rVVoM7fz7w.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some external force provided motivation for him to say that
Post by: dal9 on June 26, 2022, 07:29:36 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 07:30:04 PM
Pure gold-digger
:surprised:
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 07:38:49 PM
Pure gold-digger
:surprised:
Good thing they mutual'd, he got one of her kids, got her for 18 years
Post by: Institutional Control on June 26, 2022, 08:01:49 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on June 26, 2022, 08:07:44 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 08:13:53 PM
Why are you such a d bag? Like what’s the advantage of being one?Pure gold-digger
:surprised:
Good thing they mutual'd, he got one of her kids, got her for 18 years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2022, 10:21:34 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 26, 2022, 10:32:32 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 26, 2022, 10:45:29 PM
Why are you such a d bag? Like what’s the advantage of being one?Pure gold-digger
:surprised:
Good thing they mutual'd, he got one of her kids, got her for 18 years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please lift me up in prayer (if you haven't done so already)
Post by: WildcatNkilt on June 26, 2022, 10:48:54 PM
* Threaten IVF
* Increase maternal death rates in ectopic pregnancies and other related complications
* Facilitate unsafe, back alley abortions which will increase maternal deaths
Anyone who thinks states banning abortion will put in concessions for things like rape or incest is wishful thinking.
In the end, dudes have no business being part of this decision. Additionally religion should not play a part in this decision. I wish there was a way for females to be the only ones to vote on this.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 26, 2022, 11:04:16 PM
trying to catch up
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
IVF is baby killing and it has got the anti Roe people tantruming.
Otherwise yup
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 08:22:04 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 08:23:01 AM
Let’s point and laugh at those people on here together! Who was it?trying to catch up
SCOTUS totally dunked on Spracs
Nicname has gone full libertarian
Wacky married for money
anything else I miss?
IVF is baby killing and it has got the anti Roe people tantruming.
Otherwise yup
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 09:10:27 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on June 27, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
The political rot of the SCOTUS runs both ways.
Post by: turnbull on June 27, 2022, 10:12:50 AM
I, for life of me, can't understand why the prayer case wasn't held 9-0. Do the liberal justices only think white male christians work in schools? The issue isn't and shouldn't be the coach praying but just making sure the rest of the team isn't required to join him. There are Muslims and Jews who work in schools all over the country. I'm certain that if this was a Muslim coach told he couldn't pray on the field during Ramadan, at least 8 of those votes would be flipped.
The political rot of the SCOTUS runs both ways.
Post by: WildcatNkilt on June 27, 2022, 10:13:26 AM
What people are laughing at is how many in the pro-overturning Roe crowd had no idea that it would affect people who need and want to pursue IVF. I don't know for a fact, but I'm betting many of those same people had to do IVF as well.
Wacky I would be sad for you if you didn't have IVF as an option because Roe was overturned. I would be sad for many of my friends and family who have also gone through that process.
Again, dudes should have zero say whatsoever on what happens to a female's body. In Kansas, the August 2nd vote should be for females only.
Post by: catastrophe on June 27, 2022, 10:20:45 AM
Post by: CNS on June 27, 2022, 10:21:34 AM
My coach did this pregame, every game, as a pump up(?) or something like this. He waited until the team got in a tight circle, we already had captains do their thing in the circle, then he prayed. I was one of 3-4 non religious kids on the team. It was weird as eff to me and it also very much so was an excluding activity.
I just don't get why that should be a thing at all. Do your thing, just stop doing it at times that are not appropriate. Pray before the team gets there. Pray at home after the game. Pray silently in your head where ever the hell you want. People that don't get this simply don't want to get it.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 10:25:53 AM
Just to be clear, IUI isn’t IVF. The former is just a way to make sure your guys get to the place they need to go in case they are slow, need directions, or have too far to go without assistance. Only IVF involves fertilization pre-pregnancy.Correct. Thanks for breaking it down for him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LickNeckey on June 27, 2022, 10:26:42 AM
Just to be clear, IUI isn’t IVF. The former is just a way to make sure your guys get to the place they need to go in case they are slow, need directions, or have too far to go without assistance. Only IVF involves fertilization pre-pregnancy.
So Mrs Wacks had to dip 50k into the inheritance because of slow confused sperm?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 10:30:13 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 10:32:04 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2022, 10:34:34 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: chum1 on June 27, 2022, 11:10:19 AM
I'm not sure it would have, the school argued the coach was using his position to have those kids praying. With the implied threat of cutting playing time/off the team if they didn't participate. Also on the Muslim thing I'm pretty sure that it would have been 9-0 against the Coach. For context think of what Fox News, forced muslim prayer in schools etc headlines would be. Furthermore, Just think of how they handled the Muslim Community Center in New York City. The rot of SCOTUS is directly related to the GOP here, they straight up destroyed the confidence of it in 2016. Furthermore ending all support when Barret was rushed onto the Court, which they confirmed her after millions had already voted because they knew they were going to lose the election, but also apples to apples what they did to Garland in February 2016 saying let the American people decide.I, for life of me, can't understand why the prayer case wasn't held 9-0. Do the liberal justices only think white male christians work in schools? The issue isn't and shouldn't be the coach praying but just making sure the rest of the team isn't required to join him. There are Muslims and Jews who work in schools all over the country. I'm certain that if this was a Muslim coach told he couldn't pray on the field during Ramadan, at least 8 of those votes would be flipped.
The political rot of the SCOTUS runs both ways.
I don't pretend to understand all the legal stuff, but I gather that the crux is whether he was acting in his official capacity or a personal one.
Middle of the school field directly after game seems like a gray area at best. But, yeah, no surprise which way the Evangelical Christians of the court will view it.
Post by: LickNeckey on June 27, 2022, 11:31:36 AM
Need a bunch of heroes to take sub jobs and lead Islamic and Satanic Prayers while in the building.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 27, 2022, 11:41:23 AM
Post by: chum1 on June 27, 2022, 12:40:46 PM
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1541466458860945409
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 01:06:07 PM
If coaches, teachers, and anyone else wants to pray at school, it should be done at times when they are not actively in charge of kids or in ways that don't involve the kids.
My coach did this pregame, every game, as a pump up(?) or something like this. He waited until the team got in a tight circle, we already had captains do their thing in the circle, then he prayed. I was one of 3-4 non religious kids on the team. It was weird as eff to me and it also very much so was an excluding activity.
I just don't get why that should be a thing at all. Do your thing, just stop doing it at times that are not appropriate. Pray before the team gets there. Pray at home after the game. Pray silently in your head where ever the hell you want. People that don't get this simply don't want to get it.
exactly
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 01:08:33 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 01:11:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voMRB3MuDjE
Post by: steve dave on June 27, 2022, 02:09:38 PM
Our football team recited the lord's prayer in the locker room before every game. It probably was very awkward for the non-religious types and probably shouldn't be legal. There isn't anything voluntary about any of the voluntary activities a football team does.We had voluntary post game prayer after each game with both teams. Like every western KS team did it this way. Worked well.
Post by: 'taterblast on June 27, 2022, 02:12:59 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 27, 2022, 02:18:04 PM
Our football team recited the lord's prayer in the locker room before every game. It probably was very awkward for the non-religious types and probably shouldn't be legal. There isn't anything voluntary about any of the voluntary activities a football team does.We had voluntary post game prayer after each game with both teams. Like every western KS team did it this way. Worked well.
I never did a post game one (or recall seeing them in South Central Kansas) but my football coach said the lord's prayer before games. or maybe he had the churchiest kid on the team lead it, I don't remember.
Post by: michigancat on June 27, 2022, 02:18:52 PM
Snyder teams did the lord's prayer after every game. no idea if it continued with Klieman.Like in the locker room?
Post by: 'taterblast on June 27, 2022, 02:23:21 PM
Snyder teams did the lord's prayer after every game. no idea if it continued with Klieman.Like in the locker room?
yep, in unison
Post by: chum1 on June 27, 2022, 02:23:42 PM
https://twitter.com/TedBrogan5/status/1541470983093190656
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 27, 2022, 02:27:18 PM
Our football team recited the lord's prayer in the locker room before every game. It probably was very awkward for the non-religious types and probably shouldn't be legal. There isn't anything voluntary about any of the voluntary activities a football team does.We had voluntary post game prayer after each game with both teams. Like every western KS team did it this way. Worked well.
Ours were voluntary in the sense that you were allowed to take a knee with everyone else and mumble the words if you didn't want to actually participate.
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 02:38:43 PM
anyway
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5db15c9c4180cbd57de3823b579a0912ebc70f0342b3b3e155540590c58891ea.jpg?w=600&h=620)
Post by: Brock Landers on June 27, 2022, 02:45:09 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 27, 2022, 02:55:07 PM
What's the point of a post game prayer? Any praying should be before the game to ask Sports Jesus to prevent any injuries and to also kick the other team's ass (in a respectful and Christian manner).Saying thank you for making it through with no or limited traumatic brain injuries I guess. Praying isn’t for just when you want something. It’s not like your list to Santa.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 27, 2022, 03:44:30 PM
Then if they thought about it for five more seconds they might realize that It’s weird as eff to do prayer circles and prayers with your team before or after a game regardless of whether it’s voluntary or not. Like, you’re the adult. It just comes off as really immature to me.
All that said I would just quietly laugh at that crap and go along with it when I was 16 because I didn’t want to hurt the adults feelings or cause problems and would advise either of my kids to just do the same.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2022, 03:50:35 PM
Post by: Justwin on June 27, 2022, 06:03:07 PM
Wacks nobody is laughing at you for going through IVF. I personally know many people who have done it and are currently doing it. It's actually quite common.
What people are laughing at is how many in the pro-overturning Roe crowd had no idea that it would affect people who need and want to pursue IVF. I don't know for a fact, but I'm betting many of those same people had to do IVF as well.
Wacky I would be sad for you if you didn't have IVF as an option because Roe was overturned. I would be sad for many of my friends and family who have also gone through that process.
Again, dudes should have zero say whatsoever on what happens to a female's body. In Kansas, the August 2nd vote should be for females only.
What about men that can get pregnant and women that can't?
Post by: nicname on June 27, 2022, 06:34:17 PM
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 06:42:56 PM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
I have a problem with it (at a public school) if it can even conceivably be described as forced speech. The reason you don't think it's weird is because the First Amendment has failed, and Christianity has been accepted as the de facto established religion in this country. The rest is just mental gymnastics by very smart conservative kids from Harvard and Yale who know how to jigger with open-ended balancing tests to get the desired result.
Post by: sys on June 27, 2022, 06:53:45 PM
maybe it's not an issue if all the players are recruited.
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 07:04:15 PM
also
https://twitter.com/mollytaft/status/1541377841706803203
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 27, 2022, 07:15:56 PM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Yes what dal9 said. Also if you are the adult employee and you can’t understand that creating an environment where minors are in any way shape or form expected or encouraged to join your personal and specific religious prayers and rituals, I am dumbfounded. Like how can adults not understand how inappropriate that is in a public school setting. Outside of a fellowship of Christian athletes club meeting or something, group prayer shouldn’t be allowed or ok in public schools and any adult leading it is without a doubt rough ridin' weird.
Post by: michigancat on June 27, 2022, 07:25:38 PM
some conflict btwn the recent turn of this thread and the predilections of our new bball coach.The evangelical preacher stuff is definitely gross (and I think I've mentioned that?) but it's also used as a selling point as you hint at.
maybe it's not an issue if all the players are recruited.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 27, 2022, 07:36:43 PM
some conflict btwn the recent turn of this thread and the predilections of our new bball coach.The evangelical preacher stuff is definitely gross (and I think I've mentioned that?) but it's also used as a selling point as you hint at.
maybe it's not an issue if all the players are recruited.
Kstate mens basketball players are adults who all had a choice to play here or play somewhere else. I don’t love it either but for me at least that is a major major major difference between the two. The 9th grader at wamego high doesn’t have that choice and there’s a decent chance his/her parents don’t even know about it.
Post by: dal9 on June 27, 2022, 07:55:04 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 27, 2022, 09:17:12 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on June 27, 2022, 09:18:05 PM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Yes what dal9 said. Also if you are the adult employee and you can’t understand that creating an environment where minors are in any way shape or form expected or encouraged to join your personal and specific religious prayers and rituals, I am dumbfounded. Like how can adults not understand how inappropriate that is in a public school setting. Outside of a fellowship of Christian athletes club meeting or something, group prayer shouldn’t be allowed or ok in public schools and any adult leading it is without a doubt rough ridin' weird.
Yup, all of that is what it should be.
Also playing baseball all throughout HS, ever remember any prayer for that, and realistically the only time there was a prayer thing going on was @ Kapaun or @ Bishop Carrol, which made sense.
Also, still didn't make that feel any less weird being at a Catholic school.
Post by: CNS on June 27, 2022, 09:55:47 PM
He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.
I have always subscribed to this. However, I am recently thinking that a hundred million or so of us sucking up and dealing is what has led to zealots running loose. Slippery slopes.
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 09:58:16 PM
He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.
I have always subscribed to this. However, I am recently thinking that a hundred million or so of us sucking up and dealing is what has led to zealots running loose. Slippery slopes.
Guys, make sure that, unlike a certain poster on this board who lies about voting, all you reasonable people actually get out and vote on August 2 and then in the November midterms.
Post by: wetwillie on June 27, 2022, 10:00:19 PM
Post by: nicname on June 27, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Yes what dal9 said. Also if you are the adult employee and you can’t understand that creating an environment where minors are in any way shape or form expected or encouraged to join your personal and specific religious prayers and rituals, I am dumbfounded. Like how can adults not understand how inappropriate that is in a public school setting. Outside of a fellowship of Christian athletes club meeting or something, group prayer shouldn’t be allowed or ok in public schools and any adult leading it is without a doubt rough ridin' weird.
Yup, all of that is what it should be.
Also playing baseball all throughout HS, ever remember any prayer for that, and realistically the only time there was a prayer thing going on was @ Kapaun or @ Bishop Carrol, which made sense.
Also, still didn't make that feel any less weird being at a Catholic school.
I don’t think I ever saw it in baseball. Different culture.
Post by: Justwin on June 27, 2022, 10:16:43 PM
He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.
I have always subscribed to this. However, I am recently thinking that a hundred million or so of us sucking up and dealing is what has led to zealots running loose. Slippery slopes.
Guys, make sure that, unlike a certain poster on this board who lies about voting, all you reasonable people actually get out and vote on August 2 and then in the November midterms.
I will definitely get out to vote on August 2. Not so sure on the midterms.
Post by: Pete on June 27, 2022, 10:25:41 PM
He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 10:38:06 PM
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1541441873625112581
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 27, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 10:58:32 PM
Ok but what if it's mutual buhsecks?
Keep acting like you've never been to Lawrence.
Post by: DQ12 on June 27, 2022, 11:33:15 PM
Thomas’s concurrence notwithstanding, I think those freedoms are pretty unlikely to go anywhere.
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 11:36:18 PM
I don’t think polling suggests that any state would ban gay marriage. That’s an issue that has had a pretty dramatic shift in support over the last 20-30 years. The chatter about interracial marriage being on the chopping block anywhere seems far more unlikely.
Thomas’s concurrence notwithstanding, I think those freedoms are pretty unlikely to go anywhere.
I said the same thing about Roe. Like, a lot.
Post by: DQ12 on June 27, 2022, 11:39:58 PM
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
Fwiw, interracial marriage approval rating is like 96%. Apparently in the 50s when they started polling for that, it was at 4%!
I’m sure someone somewhere has written some interesting articles about how the Court has influenced public opinion on that kind of stuff - I.e. whether the court is a reflection of changing values or a facilitator of changing values.
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 11:43:36 PM
I think Abortion is a far more divisive issue in 2022 than gay marriage. Last I saw only one state had majority disapproval of gay marriage: the south of the south. And that was only like by 1% and the poll was a couple of years old.
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
You realize how derpy a lot of our state governments are, right? Do you think these essential protections should be left up to them? I'll be honest, I used to think that way, but I don't anymore.
Post by: DQ12 on June 27, 2022, 11:46:34 PM
I’m not even commenting on that. I don’t think so, but I’m really out of my element on substantive rights conlaw.I think Abortion is a far more divisive issue in 2022 than gay marriage. Last I saw only one state had majority disapproval of gay marriage: the south of the south. And that was only like by 1% and the poll was a couple of years old.
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
You realize how derpy a lot of our state governments are, right? Do you think these essential protections should be left up to them? I'll be honest, I used to think that way, but I don't anymore.
I’m just talking about the practical effect. A ban on gay marriage in Kansas wouldn’t be close imo - at least not today - who knows what Kansas looks like in 10, 20, 30 years. Abortion, OTOH? We’ll see in august. That’s my point.
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2022, 11:51:31 PM
I’m not even commenting on that. I don’t think so, but I’m really out of my element on substantive rights conlaw.I think Abortion is a far more divisive issue in 2022 than gay marriage. Last I saw only one state had majority disapproval of gay marriage: the south of the south. And that was only like by 1% and the poll was a couple of years old.
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
You realize how derpy a lot of our state governments are, right? Do you think these essential protections should be left up to them? I'll be honest, I used to think that way, but I don't anymore.
I’m just talking about the practical effect. A ban on gay marriage in Kansas wouldn’t be close imo - at least not today - who knows what Kansas looks like in 10, 20, 30 years. Abortion, OTOH? We’ll see in august. That’s my point.
Mind if I ask how you plan to vote on Aug. 2?
Post by: nicname on June 27, 2022, 11:53:31 PM
I can’t see it being more than 55/45 either way.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 12:02:40 AM
Don’t live in KS, cuz.I’m not even commenting on that. I don’t think so, but I’m really out of my element on substantive rights conlaw.I think Abortion is a far more divisive issue in 2022 than gay marriage. Last I saw only one state had majority disapproval of gay marriage: the south of the south. And that was only like by 1% and the poll was a couple of years old.
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
You realize how derpy a lot of our state governments are, right? Do you think these essential protections should be left up to them? I'll be honest, I used to think that way, but I don't anymore.
I’m just talking about the practical effect. A ban on gay marriage in Kansas wouldn’t be close imo - at least not today - who knows what Kansas looks like in 10, 20, 30 years. Abortion, OTOH? We’ll see in august. That’s my point.
Mind if I ask how you plan to vote on Aug. 2?
Post by: Spracne on June 28, 2022, 12:03:33 AM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 28, 2022, 01:27:10 AM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 28, 2022, 01:32:47 AM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Yes what dal9 said. Also if you are the adult employee and you can’t understand that creating an environment where minors are in any way shape or form expected or encouraged to join your personal and specific religious prayers and rituals, I am dumbfounded. Like how can adults not understand how inappropriate that is in a public school setting. Outside of a fellowship of Christian athletes club meeting or something, group prayer shouldn’t be allowed or ok in public schools and any adult leading it is without a doubt rough ridin' weird.
Butch Albright’s teams absolutely had coach-led prayer in the lockerrooms before every game when I was in high school. That was in the early 2000s.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 07:30:29 AM
How would you vote if you did?I’d vote yes if I lived in Kansas.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 28, 2022, 07:40:28 AM
Praying in circles before or after games isn’t weird. It’s definitely not something said coaches and the majority of their players are going feel weird doing or feel it’s at all inappropriate aside from directive from school administrator types.
It’s the opposite. It has always been the norm, especially in athletics where imo evangelical and religious types are far more common.
that's precisely missing the point: the problem isn't that some "coaches and the majority of their players aren't going to feel weird doing it"...it's about the minority that is coerced into going along with something that violates their own religious beliefs
and ftr, i'm not convinced that this is all that common...i grew up in a red state (not KS, not deep south) and i don't remember any prayer at games, home or away...
Yes what dal9 said. Also if you are the adult employee and you can’t understand that creating an environment where minors are in any way shape or form expected or encouraged to join your personal and specific religious prayers and rituals, I am dumbfounded. Like how can adults not understand how inappropriate that is in a public school setting. Outside of a fellowship of Christian athletes club meeting or something, group prayer shouldn’t be allowed or ok in public schools and any adult leading it is without a doubt rough ridin' weird.
Butch Albright’s teams absolutely had coach-led prayer in the lockerrooms before every game when I was in high school. That was in the early 2000s.
Yes and being in fca was almost a free ticket to bill congletons basketball team
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 28, 2022, 07:42:22 AM
He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.
What would my kid be singled out and bullied for? Also it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed but I’d spend more of my energy laughing at the person doing it than anything else.
Post by: catastrophe on June 28, 2022, 07:44:22 AM
I mean Obergerfell was only a few years ago. Looking at states that allowed gay marriage before that should be a pretty fair barometer of what they’ll do.I’m not even commenting on that. I don’t think so, but I’m really out of my element on substantive rights conlaw.I think Abortion is a far more divisive issue in 2022 than gay marriage. Last I saw only one state had majority disapproval of gay marriage: the south of the south. And that was only like by 1% and the poll was a couple of years old.
I don’t think banning gay marriage in ks, for example, would have a shot.
You realize how derpy a lot of our state governments are, right? Do you think these essential protections should be left up to them? I'll be honest, I used to think that way, but I don't anymore.
I’m just talking about the practical effect. A ban on gay marriage in Kansas wouldn’t be close imo - at least not today - who knows what Kansas looks like in 10, 20, 30 years. Abortion, OTOH? We’ll see in august. That’s my point.
Post by: CNS on June 28, 2022, 07:55:20 AM
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 07:59:05 AM
Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2022, 08:06:50 AM
I bet there is a personhood amendment in at least one state soon.Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Post by: CNS on June 28, 2022, 08:07:18 AM
Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Even without going all the way to zero exceptions, a 61% majority want the right with no exception. All interpretations of the Gallup data show a court precedent restricting rights a majority want.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 08:16:08 AM
Would you mind providing a link to that data supporting 61% want abortion access without exception?Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Even without going all the way to zero exceptions, a 61% majority want the right with no exception. All interpretations of the Gallup data show a court precedent restricting rights a majority want.
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2022, 08:23:59 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/20ae4057ec594b85e5af4f5f8e0fd1f8.jpg)
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2022, 08:24:55 AM
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 08:30:01 AM
This is Gallup data I found. Not 60%+ in their data but certainly trending in one direction….35% seems like an awful long way from 60%
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/20ae4057ec594b85e5af4f5f8e0fd1f8.jpg)
Post by: chum1 on June 28, 2022, 08:31:52 AM
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 08:34:17 AM
Is 85% a lot?Yeah. Like I said, I haven’t seen a state law that prohibits abortion in every circumstance. I feel like my own views are fairly fringe, and that’s not what I want to see.
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2022, 08:34:30 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 28, 2022, 08:44:08 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 28, 2022, 08:49:36 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 08:50:55 AM
I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Post by: CHONGS on June 28, 2022, 08:58:19 AM
When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 08:59:06 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
If the coach were kneeling on the sideline by himself like Tebow, I'd agree with you. This was a team activity, though, and anyone who chose not to participate would be alienating himself from his teammates and coaches.
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/06/23/kennedyjointappendix-901_custom-9a4e7c26a51b37f0b07938dff459e0bb4fc260f2-s1100-c50.jpg)
Post by: Institutional Control on June 28, 2022, 09:03:56 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ChiComCat on June 28, 2022, 09:04:36 AM
I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
I think you're crazy if you think gay marriage wouldn't come under attack. Gun reform is pretty popular but still nearly impossible to make substantial change because the GOP is beholden to the loud voices of the few. I think evangelicals could absolutely hold the same power on gay marriage. While it may not be popular with some Republicans I know, I also don't think it's going to cause them to change their votes.
Post by: chum1 on June 28, 2022, 09:10:15 AM
ultimately the hardcores want that slut who got a little wild saturday night after the Chesney concert and boned a guy she just met to be forced to raise that child forever with varying degrees of support from the government. They have to go full balls to wall and make it illegal across the board or their position is nothing more than being a non sex having weirdo worried about what everyone else does in bed.
Agree that this is by far the biggest motivating factor here and that they never explicitly say so because it's so rough ridin' ridiculous.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 09:11:02 AM
Predictos on the Aug 2 vote?
I can’t see it being more than 55/45 either way.
I think it will pass with around 65% of the vote. It would be a lot closer on a general election ballot, but probably would still easily pass.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 28, 2022, 09:36:19 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
If the coach were kneeling on the sideline by himself like Tebow, I'd agree with you. This was a team activity, though, and anyone who chose not to participate would be alienating himself from his teammates and coaches.
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/06/23/kennedyjointappendix-901_custom-9a4e7c26a51b37f0b07938dff459e0bb4fc260f2-s1100-c50.jpg)
We can't be making court rulings based on perception. If he wasn't explicit in requiring players to participate, or if it couldn't be proven that he took opportunities to play from players, or encouraged other players to alienate guys who aren't participating, his right to pray shouldn't be impeded. It seems like this was not a litmus test for public prayer, but public Christianity.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 09:43:31 AM
I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Post by: CHONGS on June 28, 2022, 09:44:28 AM
I disagree they would pass.I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 09:45:04 AM
Gun reform has judicial/constitutional issues.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
I think you're crazy if you think gay marriage wouldn't come under attack. Gun reform is pretty popular but still nearly impossible to make substantial change because the GOP is beholden to the loud voices of the few. I think evangelicals could absolutely hold the same power on gay marriage. While it may not be popular with some Republicans I know, I also don't think it's going to cause them to change their votes.
Fair enough. I think the numbers support my side but we're both speculating some.I disagree they would pass.I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 28, 2022, 09:47:20 AM
I disagree they would pass.I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Same, I think our bud DQ is being a bit naive.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 28, 2022, 09:51:20 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
If the coach were kneeling on the sideline by himself like Tebow, I'd agree with you. This was a team activity, though, and anyone who chose not to participate would be alienating himself from his teammates and coaches.
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/06/23/kennedyjointappendix-901_custom-9a4e7c26a51b37f0b07938dff459e0bb4fc260f2-s1100-c50.jpg)
We can't be making court rulings based on perception. If he wasn't explicit in requiring players to participate, or if it couldn't be proven that he took opportunities to play from players, or encouraged other players to alienate guys who aren't participating, his right to pray shouldn't be impeded. It seems like this was not a litmus test for public prayer, but public Christianity.
Can we at least all agree that the high school coach who goes to the middle of the ever loving field to lead prayer is weird and should be made fun of and that overall it’s kind of a dick, look at me, uncaring/unaware/oblivious move and that the correct thing would be to not do it? 🤷???
Post by: CHONGS on June 28, 2022, 09:52:32 AM
2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo. Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.
Post by: chum1 on June 28, 2022, 09:54:51 AM
Post by: CHONGS on June 28, 2022, 09:59:42 AM
If the state legislature is the one needed to pass a law legalizing gay marriage then it's certainly dead in the water.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2022, 10:00:25 AM
Kansas has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman, so it would be a “trigger state.” The best path would be a ballot initiative and if they timed it in a presidential election yr might be close but in the mean time it would be insanely disruptive. I don’t think a pre-emptive ballot measure would pass.
Post by: Justwin on June 28, 2022, 10:01:55 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/c017c41bc1728cf10252cbf4e6baf83b.jpg)
I would like to see a poll that breaks out the numbers state by state. This is a state issue in the absence of Roe (as it should be).
Post by: Justwin on June 28, 2022, 10:06:36 AM
ultimately the hardcores want that slut who got a little wild saturday night after the Chesney concert and boned a guy she just met to be forced to raise that child forever with varying degrees of support from the government. They have to go full balls to wall and make it illegal across the board or their position is nothing more than being a non sex having weirdo worried about what everyone else does in bed.
I haven't met anyone who thinks someone should have to raise a child after the age of 18 nor anyone that would have an issue with someone putting the child up for adoption. The ones that realize abortion is murder don't want to have exceptions for rape and incest, and preventing the murder of the child is their motivation. I would actually wonder more about the ones that want to have exceptions.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 28, 2022, 10:09:35 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
If the coach were kneeling on the sideline by himself like Tebow, I'd agree with you. This was a team activity, though, and anyone who chose not to participate would be alienating himself from his teammates and coaches.
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/06/23/kennedyjointappendix-901_custom-9a4e7c26a51b37f0b07938dff459e0bb4fc260f2-s1100-c50.jpg)
We can't be making court rulings based on perception. If he wasn't explicit in requiring players to participate, or if it couldn't be proven that he took opportunities to play from players, or encouraged other players to alienate guys who aren't participating, his right to pray shouldn't be impeded. It seems like this was not a litmus test for public prayer, but public Christianity.
Can we at least all agree that the high school coach who goes to the middle of the ever loving field to lead prayer is weird and should be made fun of and that overall it’s kind of a dick, look at me, uncaring/unaware/oblivious move and that the correct thing would be to not do it? 🤷???
100%. The times I have seen a Muslim praying on a sports field of play, they aren't going to the middle of the field to do it, I couldn't imagine the horror if they did.
Post by: Pete on June 28, 2022, 10:23:16 AM
Not being the preferred flavor of Christian or a non-Christian? Happened at my high school. I can vividly recall the mocking a Jehovah’s Witness kid got….kid was just following parents/church commands, and refused to participate.He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.
What would my kid be singled out and bullied for? Also it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed but I’d spend more of my energy laughing at the person doing it than anything else.
Saw an evangelical kid tell a Jewish kid he was “going to hell.” Only came up because an adult forced a religious activity (“church”) in a government funded (“state”) school.
That kind of crap happens all the time.
Post by: Pete on June 28, 2022, 10:26:30 AM
Feels pretty god damn lonely and helpless, and more than a little hopeless.
Post by: Pete on June 28, 2022, 10:29:02 AM
Kids kill themselves all the time.
Post by: michigancat on June 28, 2022, 10:40:24 AM
I disagree they would pass.I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Same, I think our bud DQ is being a bit naive.
I don't know how you could look at the current GOP discourse surrounding the "don't say gay" bill, "grooming", trans rights, etc. and think "oh these people clearly support gay marriage and would actually pass a state law ensuring it's legality".
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 28, 2022, 10:45:07 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 28, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
Now: Any time, any place, under any circumstances.
What changed?
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 28, 2022, 10:57:48 AM
Not being the preferred flavor of Christian or a non-Christian? Happened at my high school. I can vividly recall the mocking a Jehovah’s Witness kid got….kid was just following parents/church commands, and refused to participate.He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.
What would my kid be singled out and bullied for? Also it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed but I’d spend more of my energy laughing at the person doing it than anything else.
Saw an evangelical kid tell a Jewish kid he was “going to hell.” Only came up because an adult forced a religious activity (“church”) in a government funded (“state”) school.
That kind of crap happens all the time.
Yeah, kids can be mean I guess. Religion, clothes, shoes, weight issues, the kind of car you drive, etc. i was very fortunate in high school and never had to worry about being bullied or anything. I guess I’d just let my kid know how big of clowns those people are though and that simply ignoring something or laughing at it is usually a good plan. If it’s not one thing it’s another and making big deals out of things you’ll more than likely never going to be able to fix/get rid of is hardly ever the best policy. But that’s just me.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 28, 2022, 10:57:58 AM
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 10:59:10 AM
1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning.Like I said, we're both speculating. But broadly speaking, the issue has bipartisan support across the electorate. I don't have up to date numbers on state by state pub support, but I think people (you, Chi, Lib) are underestimating the shift since pre-Obergefell. And I don't know what's on the Court's docket or when it'll have a chance to reverse Obergefell, but time looks like it's on the pro-gay marriage side.
2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo. Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.
All that to say, those trying to definitively say "and gay marriage is next!" may end up being right, but I think that fear is quite a bit more remote relative to abortion. The Court would need to reverse Obergefell, and states where it is prohibited/vague would need to withstand an electorate (and in many cases, a state court) that disagrees with the prohibition.
Post by: ChiComCat on June 28, 2022, 11:00:02 AM
Abortion: Safe, legal, rare-A Dem Pres in the 90’s. Our current #shitshow referred to the process as being used only as a last resort during one of his 35 runs for President.
Now: Any time, any place, under any circumstances.
What changed?
I would like abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. I would also allow it under nearly any circumstance. I think there's a difference between personal views and what you would legislatively enforce on others.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 11:01:14 AM
I'm just looking at the numbers on this issue. :dunno:I disagree they would pass.I think state legislatures (where currently prohibited (or vague) absent Obergefell) ought to be getting their butts in gear to get the issue on ballots ASAP. FWIW, two (MI, GA) of the seven (LA, GA, TN, KY, OH, MI, ND) states where it's undisputedly prohibited absent Obergefell (and without any challenges pending in intermediate courts) went blue in 2020.When obergefell is overturned gay marriage will immediately be illegal in most (if not all) red states based on the laws on the books. None of those states will pass a law legalizing gay marriage.I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Again, even in red states, it's supported by the majority. The legislation would pass today everywhere if it got on the ballots and a fair cross section voted.
Same, I think our bud DQ is being a bit naive.
I don't know how you could look at the current GOP discourse surrounding the "don't say gay" bill, "grooming", trans rights, etc. and think "oh these people clearly support gay marriage and would actually pass a state law ensuring it's legality".
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 28, 2022, 11:07:01 AM
I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Right now, in 2022, you are with this where Spracne was in 2020 or so with the court and Roe.
Bro, I think you living in Illinois (if that is indeed where you still live) is coloring your outlook quite a bit. If the Supreme Court overturns this, there are states that will absolutely make gay marriage illegal, either through their gerrymandered legislatures or through a very gullible and easy-to-influence electorate hellbent on punishing people who don't fit in their evangelical religious box. Are you being serious right now? "I'm just going by the numbers" completely discounts the last six years of radicalization that Republicans have been dogwalking their base through. It will continue, and it will continue to get worse.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 11:10:28 AM
I live in KC. I think you guys are still living in 2014. I think looking at some recent polling (especially with respect to where things were 10, 20, 30 years ago) would make you guys feel better (even if it doesn't convince you of my POV).I think the point is that the massive middle part doesn’t go into what is and isn’t legal. Which is going to range from essentially everything to essentially nothing depending on the state.I was just responding to CNS suggesting that 60+% wanted unrestricted access, which is pretty far off.
Anyway, my whole point is that gay marriage has considerably broader geographic support than Roe. A majority of republicans now support gay marriage. I think any gay marriage prohibition would have a very hard time getting through anywhere.
Right now, in 2022, you are with this where Spracne was in 2020 or so with the court and Roe.
Bro, I think you living in Illinois (if that is indeed where you still live) is coloring your outlook quite a bit. If the Supreme Court overturns this, there are states that will absolutely make gay marriage illegal. Are you being serious right now?
Which is my entire point -- there is far broader support of gay marriage (geographically and ideologically) than there ever has been for abortion access to Roe's limits.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 28, 2022, 11:12:01 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 11:15:45 AM
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 11:19:24 AM
K. Well living in a big city may be coloring that view, then. (Also see the edit I made after you responded.)Your edit about the post trump republican party ignores that support for gay marriage among republicans has pretty steadily risen over the last decade (just like it has in basically every other demographic) and now includes a majority of pubs.
Maybe the polling over the last 10-15 years is just wrong? Or maybe people won't vote? Like I said, it needs to get on the ballot and people need to actually show up and vote, but that's pretty much true for any non-judicial measure.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 11:25:58 AM
K. Well living in a big city may be coloring that view, then. (Also see the edit I made after you responded.)Your edit about the post trump republican party ignores that support for gay marriage among republicans has pretty steadily risen over the last decade (just like it has in basically every other demographic) and now includes a majority of pubs.
Maybe the polling over the last 10-15 years is just wrong?
I don't think the polling is wrong, but the republicans who don't support gay marriage won't vote for a candidate who does. It makes it impossible for the republicans to win a general election if they run someone who isn't a bigoted bad person. And the republicans who do support gay marriage don't really care about the issue enough to let it influence their vote in a general election. Also, when candidates openly start running against gay marriage, most of their voters will also adopt that belief, similarly to how most Christians switched from being pro-choice to pro-life during Reagan's presidency.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 28, 2022, 11:29:08 AM
Kansas would have to pass a constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage. I don't think it's possible to get half of our legislature to vote for that. 2/3 is completely impossible.
It’s stuff like this that is a huge problem. I’m not sure a majority of Kansans would vote to take the right away but I also don’t think that a majority would vote to allow it. Never underestimate Christian hate.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 28, 2022, 11:33:48 AM
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Post by: ChiComCat on June 28, 2022, 11:34:48 AM
McKee beat me to some of this but I think there is a massive difference between a Republican supporting gay marriage and it having any impact on their voting. It's far more likely to me that gay marriage is a voting issue in the Republican primary and really only to the evangelicals who are against it. As districts have become more gerrymandered, there's a lot less incentive to do anything remotely moderate.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2022, 11:38:17 AM
I think you should really take a look at these two maps and re-evaluate.1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning.Like I said, we're both speculating. But broadly speaking, the issue has bipartisan support across the electorate. I don't have up to date numbers on state by state pub support, but I think people (you, Chi, Lib) are underestimating the shift since pre-Obergefell. And I don't know what's on the Court's docket or when it'll have a chance to reverse Obergefell, but time looks like it's on the pro-gay marriage side.
2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo. Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.
All that to say, those trying to definitively say "and gay marriage is next!" may end up being right, but I think that fear is quite a bit more remote relative to abortion. The Court would need to reverse Obergefell, and states where it is prohibited/vague would need to withstand an electorate (and in many cases, a state court) that disagrees with the prohibition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 11:39:19 AM
DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 11:43:00 AM
The colors on those maps largely (entirely?) reflect the electorate pre-2015/obergefell. If you can't recognize that support has fundamentally changed over the last 10ish years, then we're just disagreeing, which is fine.I think you should really take a look at these two maps and re-evaluate.1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning.Like I said, we're both speculating. But broadly speaking, the issue has bipartisan support across the electorate. I don't have up to date numbers on state by state pub support, but I think people (you, Chi, Lib) are underestimating the shift since pre-Obergefell. And I don't know what's on the Court's docket or when it'll have a chance to reverse Obergefell, but time looks like it's on the pro-gay marriage side.
2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo. Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.
All that to say, those trying to definitively say "and gay marriage is next!" may end up being right, but I think that fear is quite a bit more remote relative to abortion. The Court would need to reverse Obergefell, and states where it is prohibited/vague would need to withstand an electorate (and in many cases, a state court) that disagrees with the prohibition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/aeqjusuc4kuepweo6xerqa.png)
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 01:56:43 PM
If Obergefell and the others are in danger of reversal (and who knows, they may be), it's quite a ways off.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 28, 2022, 02:05:37 PM
Is 85% a lot?Yeah. Like I said, I haven’t seen a state law that prohibits abortion in every circumstance. I feel like my own views are fairly fringe, and that’s not what I want to see.
I must confess, it is difficult for me to square the sweet Dlew I've met in real life with the Goblin-mind Dlew in this thread. Still catching up on the thread, though.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 02:09:44 PM
Yeah, I don't really see the need for another Internet Abortion Debate, which is why I haven't really talked about abortion much -- and mostly waded into this thread to try and quell some of the fears re. slippery slope by providing the rapidly evolving public opinion on gay marriage.Is 85% a lot?Yeah. Like I said, I haven’t seen a state law that prohibits abortion in every circumstance. I feel like my own views are fairly fringe, and that’s not what I want to see.
I must confess, it is difficult for me to square the sweet Dlew I've met in real life with the Goblin-mind Dlew in this thread. Still catching up on the thread, though.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 28, 2022, 02:10:43 PM
DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 02:13:42 PM
It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against? If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
Post by: catastrophe on June 28, 2022, 02:15:21 PM
Of course, that public support did nothing to stop many states from denying massive numbers of people the right to get married. If Obergefell were overturned I have a very hard time believing we'd end up any different than pre-Obergefell.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 28, 2022, 02:18:15 PM
The colors on those maps largely (entirely?) reflect the electorate pre-2015/obergefell. If you can't recognize that support has fundamentally changed over the last 10ish years, then we're just disagreeing, which is fine.I think you should really take a look at these two maps and re-evaluate.1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning.Like I said, we're both speculating. But broadly speaking, the issue has bipartisan support across the electorate. I don't have up to date numbers on state by state pub support, but I think people (you, Chi, Lib) are underestimating the shift since pre-Obergefell. And I don't know what's on the Court's docket or when it'll have a chance to reverse Obergefell, but time looks like it's on the pro-gay marriage side.
2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo. Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.
All that to say, those trying to definitively say "and gay marriage is next!" may end up being right, but I think that fear is quite a bit more remote relative to abortion. The Court would need to reverse Obergefell, and states where it is prohibited/vague would need to withstand an electorate (and in many cases, a state court) that disagrees with the prohibition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/aeqjusuc4kuepweo6xerqa.png)
I generally tend to agree with this, but I think like with Roe, there def needs to be some law/protections put in place "in case." Though to your point while Roe has less support, it was/is somewhat shocking it happened, if we get in Thomas' wish list of contraception, gay marriage, etc then I think you'd see a giant wave of some support of some amendment/law cause it just seems to ridiculous at that point to not have something to protect those.
Side note, while a general, I think besides the credibility part Spracne talks about, I think the thing that strikes me the most is how generally once things are giveth, it's very, almost impossible to take away on things related to government. Of course it does happen, but it's so damn rare and hard.
Post by: catastrophe on June 28, 2022, 02:20:36 PM
It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against? If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.
Post by: Spracne on June 28, 2022, 02:21:58 PM
It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against? If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.
Ding ding ding.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 02:25:00 PM
Yeah, it's hard for me to say whether it's disqualifying without knowing more info about the stances of the politician and the opponent.It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against? If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.
As a result, no, it's not necessarily disqualifying to me.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 02:27:19 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 28, 2022, 02:31:49 PM
It really should be a lot easier for a gay marriage ban to get a large amount of evangelical support than it was for abortion. The bible actually says stuff against homosexuality. Just start running homophobic stuff on conservative talk radio and ~40% of the country will support gay marriage bans by this time next year.
The difference is that (as with far too many things in life), there is still such a stigma surrounding abortion that people simply don't talk about it like they do gay marriage. It's not constitutional or even logical arguments that turn people's opinions, it is realizing that so many people that they know and love are directly affected by the issue. I'm sure I know at least half a dozen people who have had abortions in heartbreaking situations. Those people simply do not talk about their experiences so it doesn't feel like a personal issue to me like even gay marriage does.
Post by: CNS on June 28, 2022, 02:36:28 PM
Would you mind providing a link to that data supporting 61% want abortion access without exception?Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.
Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.
Even without going all the way to zero exceptions, a 61% majority want the right with no exception. All interpretations of the Gallup data show a court precedent restricting rights a majority want.
I was mistaken the 60% is support of Roe.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 28, 2022, 02:39:14 PM
Yeah, it's hard for me to say whether it's disqualifying without knowing more info about the stances of the politician and the opponent.It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against? If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision. Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.
And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.
FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.
I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it
Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level
This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.
As a result, no, it's not necessarily disqualifying to me.
Fair enough, I concede my admittedly rushed hypothetical is overly simplified and there could be a host of other issues that, to you, would offset this position. For myself I don’t think I could get past it. Granted I don’t vote Republican and I can’t imagine many dems taking that position.
Post by: waks on June 28, 2022, 02:42:03 PM
I remember thinking the 1 in 4 women will have an abortion statistic seemed high when I first heard it. The other night I was having a discussion with three other women and another man and all three women had had one. I don't think people realize how often birth control and contraceptives can fail. Add in the need for them for medical reasons and that statistic makes even more sense.It really should be a lot easier for a gay marriage ban to get a large amount of evangelical support than it was for abortion. The bible actually says stuff against homosexuality. Just start running homophobic stuff on conservative talk radio and ~40% of the country will support gay marriage bans by this time next year.
The difference is that (as with far too many things in life), there is still such a stigma surrounding abortion that people simply don't talk about it like they do gay marriage. It's not constitutional or even logical arguments that turn people's opinions, it is realizing that so many people that they know and love are directly affected by the issue. I'm sure I know at least half a dozen people who have had abortions in heartbreaking situations. Those people simply do not talk about their experiences so it doesn't feel like a personal issue to me like even gay marriage does.
Post by: Pete on June 28, 2022, 02:44:55 PM
I wish more parents were like you and not force religious adherence on their kids, and that the adults at the school would take your advice and just not do that. Here we are though.Not being the preferred flavor of Christian or a non-Christian? Happened at my high school. I can vividly recall the mocking a Jehovah’s Witness kid got….kid was just following parents/church commands, and refused to participate.He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.
What would my kid be singled out and bullied for? Also it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed but I’d spend more of my energy laughing at the person doing it than anything else.
Saw an evangelical kid tell a Jewish kid he was “going to hell.” Only came up because an adult forced a religious activity (“church”) in a government funded (“state”) school.
That kind of crap happens all the time.
Yeah, kids can be mean I guess. Religion, clothes, shoes, weight issues, the kind of car you drive, etc. i was very fortunate in high school and never had to worry about being bullied or anything. I guess I’d just let my kid know how big of clowns those people are though and that simply ignoring something or laughing at it is usually a good plan. If it’s not one thing it’s another and making big deals out of things you’ll more than likely never going to be able to fix/get rid of is hardly ever the best policy. But that’s just me.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2022, 02:58:06 PM
Maybe we are talking past each other?
The point I am making is that it will be incredibly disruptive if Obergefell was overturned because even LEFT COAST CALIFORNIA has laws on the books that would negate all the gay marriages in their state. I think the best argument that the court won't overturn it is it is an administrative state nightmare to dissolve that many marriages overnight.
Now it is pretty easy to believe that California would act quickly to reverse that, but you are confusing public polling with the legislative or ballot process that would need to occur to proactively support gay marriage as a political question after it had just been overturned by the Supreme Court. I think that would be a much bigger lift, than you are implying.
Anyways, this is of course all hypothetical but I think you should probably think about how difficult it is to pass even very popular pieces of legislation and agree that this would probably be contentious in many states.
Post by: DQ12 on June 28, 2022, 03:05:11 PM
@dlewYeah I have reconsidered. If Obergefell (oberge)fell tomorrow, it would be a bit of a shitshow in a lot of places (at least for a while), notwithstanding the broad (and becoming broader) bipartisan support for gay marriage.
Maybe we are talking past each other?
The point I am making is that it will be incredibly disruptive if Obergefell was overturned because even LEFT COAST CALIFORNIA has laws on the books that would negate all the gay marriages in their state. I think the best argument that the court won't overturn it is it is an administrative state nightmare to dissolve that many marriages overnight.
Now it is pretty easy to believe that California would act quickly to reverse that, but you are confusing public polling with the legislative or ballot process that would need to occur to proactively support gay marriage as a political question after it had just been overturned by the Supreme Court. I think that would be a much bigger lift, than you are implying.
Anyways, this is of course all hypothetical but I think you should probably think about how difficult it is to pass even very popular pieces of legislation and agree that this would probably be contentious in many states.
That said, given that Obergefell is still good law today, and only one lone justice hinted at even granting a challenging case cert, i think it's a ways off from being left to the states. In the meantime (and in light of Dobbs), i think states would be wise to start getting some state legislation going, even if it's redundant in the interim.
fwiw, i think the bolded part of your quote is wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2022, 03:39:32 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/3b2bbb5cf9ba8bdd720de91daac1f919.jpg)
Post by: Spracne on June 28, 2022, 04:02:53 PM
Wild democracy fact
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/3b2bbb5cf9ba8bdd720de91daac1f919.jpg)
It was 5-4 to overturn Roe. Roberts concurred in the judgment only (to reverse the lower court) and wrote separately to state he would not have gutted the prior precedents.
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2022, 04:17:21 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 28, 2022, 04:17:59 PM
Wild democracy fact[SpongeBob font] IT'S A REPUBLIC
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220628/3b2bbb5cf9ba8bdd720de91daac1f919.jpg)
Post by: kim carnes on June 28, 2022, 04:39:09 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 28, 2022, 04:41:28 PM
Post by: Institutional Control on June 28, 2022, 06:02:13 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 28, 2022, 06:06:04 PM
Where is Spracne’s meme when you need it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(https://i.imgflip.com/62jxtf.jpg)
Post by: dal9 on June 28, 2022, 06:12:05 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 28, 2022, 06:22:19 PM
Post by: turnbull on June 28, 2022, 07:28:59 PM
Texas and Florida are easily the most important GOP states, and they are very much anti-gay.
Post by: Cire on June 28, 2022, 08:01:10 PM
Weird story Texas was more competitive than Minnesota in 2020 at the Presidential Level.That’s because presidential elections aren’t gerrymanderedTexas and Florida are easily the most important GOP states, and they are very much anti-gay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dal9 on June 28, 2022, 09:53:17 PM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
u are buying into the majority's spin on the facts, which is contradicted by photographic evidence(!) in the dissent. read it. suffice it to say, a lot more was going on there besides the coach quietly praying on the field.
Post by: chum1 on June 28, 2022, 10:11:46 PM
Post by: turnbull on June 28, 2022, 10:42:59 PM
Weird story Texas was more competitive than Minnesota in 2020 at the Presidential Level.That’s because presidential elections aren’t gerrymanderedTexas and Florida are easily the most important GOP states, and they are very much anti-gay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2022, 12:09:16 AM
Can’t believe someone just posted a robert reich tweet
Facts can be hard to read and accept
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2022, 12:12:18 AM
Re-education camps: Check
Struggle courts: Check
Dissolve the Electoral College: Check
A man after every ProgFacists stone cold heart
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2022, 12:20:20 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
u are buying into the majority's spin on the facts, which is contradicted by photographic evidence(!) in the dissent. read it. suffice it to say, a lot more was going on there besides the coach quietly praying on the field.
I'm not buying any spin, I've yet to read a single quote about this case, before or after the ruling, that contended that this coach mandated prayer for anyone.
Yes, the heart of this issue is conservative culture war bullshit, but once again, telling a public school employee that they can't pray at their place of work would have had ramifications far beyond the religious right. I taught with a teacher who prayed in her classroom during Ramadan, of course no one was there when she did it, but if that ruling wasn't affirmed, she 109% would have lost the opportunity to pray, alone, in her classroom.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2022, 12:23:22 AM
dax: no it isn't, Nazi
Post by: dal9 on June 29, 2022, 02:14:16 AM
you are completely misreading it the case. (or, more likely, not reading the case, just commentary about it.)what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
u are buying into the majority's spin on the facts, which is contradicted by photographic evidence(!) in the dissent. read it. suffice it to say, a lot more was going on there besides the coach quietly praying on the field.
I'm not buying any spin, I've yet to read a single quote about this case, before or after the ruling, that contended that this coach mandated prayer for anyone.
Yes, the heart of this issue is conservative culture war bullshit, but once again, telling a public school employee that they can't pray at their place of work would have had ramifications far beyond the religious right. I taught with a teacher who prayed in her classroom during Ramadan, of course no one was there when she did it, but if that ruling wasn't affirmed, she 109% would have lost the opportunity to pray, alone, in her classroom.
1) there can be inappropriate coercion without an explicit mandate.
2) even the majority admits that even if the coach lost the case, your teacher friend could face no consequences. (school in this case offered the coach time to pray behind closed doors in private, but that was not good enough for either the coach or the majority)
anyway, it's not that long read it for yourself https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2022, 09:15:44 AM
what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
u are buying into the majority's spin on the facts, which is contradicted by photographic evidence(!) in the dissent. read it. suffice it to say, a lot more was going on there besides the coach quietly praying on the field.
I'm not buying any spin, I've yet to read a single quote about this case, before or after the ruling, that contended that this coach mandated prayer for anyone.
Yes, the heart of this issue is conservative culture war bullshit, but once again, telling a public school employee that they can't pray at their place of work would have had ramifications far beyond the religious right. I taught with a teacher who prayed in her classroom during Ramadan, of course no one was there when she did it, but if that ruling wasn't affirmed, she 109% would have lost the opportunity to pray, alone, in her classroom.
What would your opinion be if the teacher would have prayed out loud to start class off every day and encouraged the rest of the class to join in? Students who weren't interested would be able to stay in their seats, of course.
Post by: Fedor on June 29, 2022, 09:31:07 AM
I only got 2 pages in;you are completely misreading it the case. (or, more likely, not reading the case, just commentary about it.)what about Ish Masood, stuck here and unable to transfer? I don't know his religion for a fact but he could be Muslim based on name.
He is Muslim, Tang has spoken about it. He also could have transferred if he wanted, the NCAA hasn't really declined any waivers.
I don't think anyone addressed my point about this ruling. If they struck down the appellate court ruling they would be restricting his right to pray on the field, the ruling wasn't about coercion of his players. If it was deemed that he or anyone else were forcing players to pray, while working at a public school, then that should be dealt with as a separate issue. I will point out again, that this ruling allows a Muslim coach to pray, publically, while coaching his team. When this happens, there is no expectation of any player joining the coach. The rights of all practicers of religion shouldn't be punished because the majority of bad actors, in this realm, are evangelicals.
u are buying into the majority's spin on the facts, which is contradicted by photographic evidence(!) in the dissent. read it. suffice it to say, a lot more was going on there besides the coach quietly praying on the field.
I'm not buying any spin, I've yet to read a single quote about this case, before or after the ruling, that contended that this coach mandated prayer for anyone.
Yes, the heart of this issue is conservative culture war bullshit, but once again, telling a public school employee that they can't pray at their place of work would have had ramifications far beyond the religious right. I taught with a teacher who prayed in her classroom during Ramadan, of course no one was there when she did it, but if that ruling wasn't affirmed, she 109% would have lost the opportunity to pray, alone, in her classroom.
1) there can be inappropriate coercion without an explicit mandate.
2) even the majority admits that even if the coach lost the case, your teacher friend could face no consequences. (school in this case offered the coach time to pray behind closed doors in private, but that was not good enough for either the coach or the majority)
anyway, it's not that long read it for yourself https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Post by: chum1 on June 29, 2022, 09:56:20 AM
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Post by: Cire on June 29, 2022, 12:24:29 PM
Don’t get raped in Missouri
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 8manpick on June 29, 2022, 12:31:11 PM
Post by: Cire on June 29, 2022, 12:49:46 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2022, 01:33:03 PM
Saint Luke’s stopped giving plan b pillsWTF. Are even the most hardcore fringe’y anti abortion people against plan B? Seems like this would fall to total ban with no exceptions. Concur DLew?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2022, 01:35:21 PM
Saint Luke’s stopped giving plan b pillsWTF. Are even the most hardcore fringe’y anti abortion people against plan B? Seems like this would fall to total ban with no exceptions. Concur DLew?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of people are completely against post-sex contraception because they believe in making sluts face the consequences.
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on June 29, 2022, 01:48:11 PM
Can’t believe someone just posted a robert reich tweetJust reminded me of how Rush Limbaugh used to say "Robert Reisssssshhhhh" on his show.
Post by: Cire on June 29, 2022, 01:55:20 PM
Scared of Missouri’s new lawSaint Luke’s stopped giving plan b pillsWTF. Are even the most hardcore fringe’y anti abortion people against plan B? Seems like this would fall to total ban with no exceptions. Concur DLew?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 02:35:26 PM
Well, first, plan B isn't prohibited. https://missouriindependent.com/2022/06/29/missouri-ag-says-state-abortion-ban-does-not-prohibit-plan-b-or-contraception/ (https://missouriindependent.com/2022/06/29/missouri-ag-says-state-abortion-ban-does-not-prohibit-plan-b-or-contraception/)Saint Luke’s stopped giving plan b pillsWTF. Are even the most hardcore fringe’y anti abortion people against plan B? Seems like this would fall to total ban with no exceptions. Concur DLew?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Second, even if it was prohibited, i don't think that would render it "total ban no exception" if an exception exists for "medical emergencies" right there in the text of the statute.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2022, 02:47:55 PM
Some random lib: the sun is hotRobert “Third” Reich is not some random lib and any ProgLib (or anyone else) who openly lobbies for Pol Potian re-education camps deserves every ounce of ridicule they get.
dax: no it isn't, Nazi
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2022, 02:52:09 PM
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 03:25:48 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 03:32:42 PM
that was my question too! how is there a disagreement about the facts at the SCOTUS level?https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
Post by: Cire on June 29, 2022, 03:43:34 PM
Oops
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2022, 03:57:37 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
The facts seem to be present on Sotomayor's dissent. It appears the conservatives ignored them and went with their feelings like any MAGA would.
Post by: dal9 on June 29, 2022, 03:59:35 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
the facts were in the record, as the dissent points out (seriously, people, read it, it's not that long). some were just outright ignored, others were deemed irrelevant by the majority for dubious technical reasons (most notably, they ignored the guys behavior up to the point where he got his first warning, and ignored everything he did/said outside of the postgame football field).
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 29, 2022, 04:17:59 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 04:18:33 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.
So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
the facts were in the record, as the dissent points out (seriously, people, read it, it's not that long). some were just outright ignored, others were deemed irrelevant by the majority for dubious technical reasons (most notably, they ignored the guys behavior up to the point where he got his first warning, and ignored everything he did/said outside of the postgame football field).
Hmm. This is becoming a trend for this iteration of the Court. The Supreme Cherry-Pickers.
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 04:19:19 PM
Are there any posters in this thread still clinging to any shred of their previous reverence and respect for this Supreme Court?
I used to be the resident SCOTUS Stan, but couldn't be me, anymore.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2022, 04:28:31 PM
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2022, 04:40:35 PM
Post by: chum1 on June 29, 2022, 06:50:11 PM
https://twitter.com/rebeccanagle/status/1542178900243013633
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 29, 2022, 06:58:54 PM
Are there any posters in this thread still clinging to any shred of their previous reverence and respect for this Supreme Court?
I used to be the resident SCOTUS Stan, but couldn't be me, anymore.
I’m also out. Get rid of confirmation hearings too as they are worthless except to hear about what a POC the future justice is
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 29, 2022, 07:34:02 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 29, 2022, 07:58:37 PM
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?
This pope says wrap that rascal
Post by: CNS on June 29, 2022, 08:25:05 PM
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?
Magic Pope Ball says “Signs point to yes”
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 08:26:29 PM
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?Poor says contraception is a sin. I don’t think serious people are considering banning contraception.
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 08:30:03 PM
Same theme?I haven’t read this opinion, but I had a case in OK federal court last year and everyone talked about what a shitshow McGirt has caused.
https://twitter.com/rebeccanagle/status/1542178900243013633
They’d be like “well there’s a good chance we don’t keep our trial date because of McGirt” and I’m like “who is McGirt? :dunno: “
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 29, 2022, 09:09:05 PM
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?Poor says contraception is a sin. I don’t think serious people are considering banning contraception.
I’m not sure if this is a yes they should be worried or no they shouldn’t be worried. Vasectomies on the cutting board too?
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 09:13:28 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 09:14:20 PM
There is zero percent chance contraception is going to be banned.
Define contraception.
Post by: DQ12 on June 29, 2022, 09:16:13 PM
There is zero percent chance contraception is going to be banned.
Define contraception.
BC, condoms, vasectomies, plan b (apparently?). Idk. Is “the sponge” still a thing?
Post by: Tobias on June 29, 2022, 09:19:03 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.
Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 09:56:25 PM
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.
Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.
Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2022, 10:01:11 PM
Do you fishing religion in schools or do you dislike forced Christianity?I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.
Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.
Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.
Issue with a teacher wearing a hijab? Issue with the choir singing a song in Hebrew? Issue with a kid being allowed to sculpt a Buddha statue?
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2022, 10:34:25 PM
Do you fishing religion in schools or do you dislike forced Christianity?I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.
Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.
Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.
Issue with a teacher wearing a hijab? Issue with the choir singing a song in Hebrew? Issue with a kid being allowed to sculpt a Buddha statue?
Can't figure out what the typo was supposed to mean, but I don't have a problem with personal/private expression of religious beliefs. I do have a problem with forced speech and violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Regarding the preceding sentence, I think anything even conceivably bordering on it is a no-go in public schools. To pull a card from the Conservative playbook, "I don't want my tax dollars supporting that."
Post by: dal9 on June 29, 2022, 11:10:30 PM
like spracs said inferences are inextricably part of the legal system.I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."
Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)
Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.
Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.
But even more to the point:
"For instance, Kennedy’s letter asserted that he had not invited anyone to pray with him; the District noted that that might be true of Kennedy’s September 17 prayer specifically, but that Kennedy had acknowledged inviting others to join him on many previous occasions." (dissent, p. 7). Are you saying that when a coach "invites" you to do something, there's no coercion involved?
"After the issues with Kennedy arose, several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had
participated in Kennedy’s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team. No BHS students
appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy’s suspension." (dissent, p. 11)
"The District Court further found that players had reported "feeling compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time,” and that the “slow accumulation of players joining Kennedy suggests exactly the type of vulnerability to social pressure that makes the Establishment Clause vital in the high school context.” (dissent 12-13).
etc etc
Post by: turnbull on June 30, 2022, 09:25:48 AM
Roe vs Wade Gone
Climate Change regulations gone
Church and State separation wall broke
FEC vs Cruz allowing it to legally bribe a Senator/Congressmen even further
Gutting the Voting Rights Act more, destroying Minority Districts all over
At this point they may as well say "own the libs" is their only goal.
Post by: Justwin on June 30, 2022, 09:42:32 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2022, 09:49:07 AM
Post by: CNS on June 30, 2022, 10:35:42 AM
1. He is the worst
2. He has to be top 5 us politicians that had such a win in his focus on judge appointments.
He has to have rubbed his dick raw by now.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2022, 11:10:55 AM
Damn, they're just piling up like cord wood at a sawmill across the whole political spectrum.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2022, 11:28:04 AM
Biden Admin taking (yet another) L.
Damn, they're just piling up like cord wood at a sawmill across the whole political spectrum.
Biden actually won his case today, dax. Kavanaugh betrayed the magas.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2022, 11:30:33 AM
Biden Admin taking (yet another) L.
Damn, they're just piling up like cord wood at a sawmill across the whole political spectrum.
Biden actually won his case today, dax. Kavanaugh betrayed the magas.
Oh I know they won the open borders case. But they got smacked (again) on the EPA case. Got damn legislative process anyway! :curse:
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2022, 01:23:06 PM
Post by: mocat on June 30, 2022, 01:33:36 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2022, 01:43:29 PM
what a rough ridin' clown show
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2022, 01:44:28 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2022, 01:48:23 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 30, 2022, 02:16:05 PM
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1542524612814053377Knowing nothing about this, why doesn’t Biden just pardon this person? Does that prevent them from still seeking relief from being wrongfully convicted?
what a rough ridin' clown show
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2022, 02:24:54 PM
Post by: dal9 on June 30, 2022, 04:17:14 PM
i didn't know until the last year or so how bats he is, my goodness
"then you weren't paying attention" is a cliche , but i hate to say that it REALLY applies in this case
Post by: Pete on June 30, 2022, 05:47:06 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 30, 2022, 06:13:39 PM
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1542618970573922304
Post by: Spracne on July 01, 2022, 10:38:14 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2022, 10:42:52 AM
Post by: CNS on July 01, 2022, 11:06:36 AM
Thomas might just be the worst human being on the planet.
Hard to believe given how cheery he looks.
Post by: Spracne on July 01, 2022, 11:15:42 AM
Thomas might just be the worst human being on the planet.
Hard to believe given how cheery he looks.
Dude holds a grudge longer than Trump.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 01, 2022, 11:42:00 AM
Jesus rough ridin' Christ. We have an out in the open Qannon justice
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1542618970573922304
If he weren't such a downgrade I would look forward to how batshit he can get. You know he is dying to drop some pizzagate, anit-vax moron fuel
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2022, 11:45:48 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 01, 2022, 11:52:25 AM
A "Judge Clarence" tv show focused on parental disputes would be quality daytime programming.
He would call everyone groomer and that they were trafficers
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2022, 11:53:44 AM
A "Judge Clarence" tv show focused on parental disputes would be quality daytime programming.
He would call everyone groomer and that they were trafficers
He would give full custody to rapist fathers after applauding the mother for choosing life under difficult circumstances.
Post by: dal9 on July 01, 2022, 08:58:17 PM
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
Could Bernard help?
....
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 05, 2022, 08:35:37 PM
Sounds like she should have thought about that before spreading her legs smh
Post by: Institutional Control on July 10, 2022, 06:46:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on July 10, 2022, 06:51:29 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pregnant-texas-woman-says-unborn-baby-count-car-passenger-receiving-ho-rcna37531?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fs=e&s=cl
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty good argument for getting out of a ticket. Bet it will get tossed. It's not like traffic courts issue reasoned opinions anyway, so it's not like it will become precedent. But she's a sharp cookie.
Post by: Kat Kid on July 13, 2022, 02:04:33 PM
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/ (https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-abortion-story-too-good-to-confirm-joe-biden-ten-year-old-girl-indiana-ohio-caitlin-bernard-11657648618?mod=djemalertNEWS (https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-abortion-story-too-good-to-confirm-joe-biden-ten-year-old-girl-indiana-ohio-caitlin-bernard-11657648618?mod=djemalertNEWS)
Post by: Spracne on July 13, 2022, 02:15:44 PM
jfc
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/ (https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-abortion-story-too-good-to-confirm-joe-biden-ten-year-old-girl-indiana-ohio-caitlin-bernard-11657648618?mod=djemalertNEWS (https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-abortion-story-too-good-to-confirm-joe-biden-ten-year-old-girl-indiana-ohio-caitlin-bernard-11657648618?mod=djemalertNEWS)
Very embarrassing for the WSJ.
Post by: Kat Kid on July 13, 2022, 02:20:42 PM
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/ohio-attorney-general-rejoices-arrest-child-rape-suspect/10048250002/ (https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/ohio-attorney-general-rejoices-arrest-child-rape-suspect/10048250002/)
Quote
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeared on Fox News this week, casting doubt on the veracity of Dr. Caitlin Bernard's account that a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim needed to travel to Indiana for an abortion.
Yost, a Republican, doubled down on that in an interview with the USA TODAY Network Ohio bureau on Tuesday.
"Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication. I know the cops and prosecutors in this state. There's not one of them that wouldn't be turning over every rock, looking for this guy and they would have charged him," he said. "I'm not saying it could not have happened. What I'm saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source who has an obvious axe to grind.""
After news broke Wednesday of an arrest in the case, Yost issued a single sentence statement: "We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets."
Post by: Spracne on July 13, 2022, 03:05:04 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 13, 2022, 04:13:04 PM
Post by: Spracne on July 13, 2022, 04:26:01 PM
lucky for the *alleged* victim that Indiana doctors wouldperform the procedureendorse State sponsored murder instead of agreeing to enforce Ohio law. That would certainly have been a comity of errors.
I see you, fam.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 13, 2022, 07:01:18 PM
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Also, we may need to look into charging anyone who has a miscarriage with murder if they did not adhere to every recommended prenatal care item. For example, if a mother consumes a caffeinated beverage and has a miscarriage, then perhaps the mother should be charged with murder. Perhaps not murder 1, but at least manslaughter.
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 09:52:57 AM
Clearly this is a crime, right?
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 09:54:02 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 20, 2022, 10:02:02 AM
If a restaurant serves caffeinated beverage to a pregnant woman, what should that punishment be?
$100,000 fine.
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 10:12:44 AM
Tough, but fair.If a restaurant serves caffeinated beverage to a pregnant woman, what should that punishment be?
$100,000 fine.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 20, 2022, 10:25:54 AM
But i'm a fair and reasonable person, i think there have to be limits. What caffeine level is acceptable? Technically even decaf isn't 100% caffeine free. The last thing we need to do is step on personal liberty. There's about 100 mg of caffeine in a cup of coffee...so i dunno maybe we cap it at 5 mg? As long as you drink contains less than 5mg of caffeine then like, okay fine, but tread lightly. If you're coming in 3x a day ordering these 5mg'ers you'll definitely end up on a watchlist.
The more i think about it, i'm not sure its worth the risk. I think we just ban all women from consuming caffeine. And soft cheese. and salmon. and alcohol. At this point i really can't see any cause that justifies the risk.
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 10:31:57 AM
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 10:34:55 AM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 20, 2022, 10:37:55 AM
Post by: Pete on July 20, 2022, 10:39:02 AM
Surely this should be illegal.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 20, 2022, 11:13:57 AM
here's what we do Pete. We start at starbucks for example. We need some motivated citizens ready to step up. Anytime a person whose body contains a uterus orders a caffienated beverage, they will be immediately subject to a urine pregnancy test. If they can not (or will not) provide indisputable proof that they are not with child at the time of purchase...I say at minimum, charge them with attempted murder. If they are found to be pregnant, to me that gets you a fast pass to the front of the line for the chair. jmho.
But i'm a fair and reasonable person, i think there have to be limits. What caffeine level is acceptable? Technically even decaf isn't 100% caffeine free. The last thing we need to do is step on personal liberty. There's about 100 mg of caffeine in a cup of coffee...so i dunno maybe we cap it at 5 mg? As long as you drink contains less than 5mg of caffeine then like, okay fine, but tread lightly. If you're coming in 3x a day ordering these 5mg'ers you'll definitely end up on a watchlist.
The more i think about it, i'm not sure its worth the risk. I think we just ban all women from consuming caffeine. And soft cheese. and salmon. and alcohol. At this point i really can't see any cause that justifies the risk.
They cannot own cats either.
Post by: bucket on September 12, 2022, 09:26:12 PM
Why don't these idiots throw their phones in a lake and get a new one? Is that tampering with evidence or something?
Post by: nicname on September 12, 2022, 10:25:31 PM
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1569435510577274880
Why don't these idiots throw their phones in a lake and get a new one? Is that tampering with evidence or something?
New phone who dis?
Post by: catastrophe on September 12, 2022, 11:11:12 PM
Post by: bucket on September 13, 2022, 07:16:02 AM
What’s the SCOTUS connection?
I didn't know where to post. I thought we had a lawyers thread in the pit, but I couldn't find it.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 08, 2023, 12:04:21 PM
https://twitter.com/JNelsonLDF/status/1666829930179559426
I'm skeptical that this will lead to any real change on gerrymandering outside of this particular district in Alabama but still :surprised:
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 08, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2023, 01:24:27 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 08, 2023, 08:33:46 PM
https://twitter.com/Leftist_Kiwi/status/1666819433791389699
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 08, 2023, 09:33:24 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2023, 10:24:36 PM
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 08, 2023, 10:26:08 PM
#deflectobotsgE does not want to talk about their hyper gerry mandering strongholds, but instead want to congratulate Kav for passing history 001History 001? lmao
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 09, 2023, 10:26:13 AM
They (Alabama) must be up to some pretty serious crap when even Kavanah is like nah I think I’ll be on the right side of history for this one
It is the fattest state in history. Are you surprised?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 09, 2023, 10:27:03 AM
#deflectobotsgE does not want to talk about their hyper gerry mandering strongholds, but instead want to congratulate Kav for passing history 001
my freaking god. this is mega alabama
Post by: MakeItRain on June 09, 2023, 12:15:43 PM
#deflectobotsgE does not want to talk about their hyper gerry mandering strongholds
I'd love to see a link showing districts gerrymandered unduly cutting representation of white republicans
Post by: Spracne on June 09, 2023, 12:16:21 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2023, 01:00:08 PM
Absolutely relentless: Now, with a 2024 rematch approaching, Democratic leaders in Washington and Albany are reviving a legal battle to reopen the mapmaking process and potentially pull the lines back in their direction
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-lawsuit-ny.html
eff dem state courts
001 was intentional you giant derps. It’s like understanding remedial history.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2023, 01:08:59 PM
https://apnews.com/article/elections-race-and-ethnicity-philanthropy-barack-obama-state-governments-73d75629c440a971c65e9016476ed869
Democrats in Illinois, meanwhile, have done all they can to exert control and ensure it benefits their candidates for elections through 2030.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on June 09, 2023, 09:08:15 PM
Gerrymandering only exists in Southern Republican majority states . . . #blueanongE
Absolutely relentless: Now, with a 2024 rematch approaching, Democratic leaders in Washington and Albany are reviving a legal battle to reopen the mapmaking process and potentially pull the lines back in their direction
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-lawsuit-ny.html
eff dem state courts
001 was intentional you giant derps. It’s like understanding remedial history.
Gerrymandering only occurs in Republican controlled Southern states . . . #blueanongE
https://apnews.com/article/elections-race-and-ethnicity-philanthropy-barack-obama-state-governments-73d75629c440a971c65e9016476ed869
Democrats in Illinois, meanwhile, have done all they can to exert control and ensure it benefits their candidates for elections through 2030.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shame on the democrats for gerrymandering those districts. I'm glad we agree that gerrymandering is undemocratic and needs to end, immediately.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2023, 07:55:16 AM
Which is why I used the word “fantastic” about the SCOTUS decision in AL.Gerrymandering only exists in Southern Republican majority states . . . #blueanongE
Absolutely relentless: Now, with a 2024 rematch approaching, Democratic leaders in Washington and Albany are reviving a legal battle to reopen the mapmaking process and potentially pull the lines back in their direction
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-lawsuit-ny.html
eff dem state courts
001 was intentional you giant derps. It’s like understanding remedial history.Gerrymandering only occurs in Republican controlled Southern states . . . #blueanongE
https://apnews.com/article/elections-race-and-ethnicity-philanthropy-barack-obama-state-governments-73d75629c440a971c65e9016476ed869
Democrats in Illinois, meanwhile, have done all they can to exert control and ensure it benefits their candidates for elections through 2030.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shame on the democrats for gerrymandering those districts. I'm glad we agree that gerrymandering is undemocratic and needs to end, immediately.
But PurposelyObtusegE strikes hard and strikes fast
Post by: Cire on June 14, 2023, 08:21:56 AM
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 10:38:48 AM
I look forward to near-entirely-Asian graduating classes at the Ivy League schools very soon!
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 10:47:07 AM
Post by: wetwillie on June 29, 2023, 10:48:08 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 11:02:22 AM
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 11:09:30 AM
did they get rid of legacy admissions?No, so there will still be some whites. But only the good ones from good stock. You know, like east coast liberal elite families.
Post by: michigancat on June 29, 2023, 11:35:57 AM
FINALLY Harvard and other elite institutions can stop discriminating against Asians by limiting their numbers, despite the fact that their entrance scores are clearly superior and therefore those students are much better prepared.
I look forward to near-entirely-Asian graduating classes at the Ivy League schools very soon!
I bet Harvard admissions officers would be able to tell the race of like 95% of applicants without even seeing the names! They will do whatever the hell they want!
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2023, 11:43:18 AM
FINALLY Harvard and other elite institutions can stop discriminating against Asians by limiting their numbers, despite the fact that their entrance scores are clearly superior and therefore those students are much better prepared.
I look forward to near-entirely-Asian graduating classes at the Ivy League schools very soon!
I bet Harvard admissions officers would be able to tell the race of like 95% of applicants without even seeing the names! They will do whatever the hell they want!
Roberts, writing for the majority, said schools could still consider race, e.g., in an applicant's essay to show how they overcame prejudice or were inspired because of their race. So, this just makes what was already a black box process an even blacker box. It's unclear how much this decision will actually have an effect. And while the majority did not specifically overturn the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger case, Thomas in his concurrence said that decision was "effectively overruled" by this decision.
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 01:10:21 PM
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 01:12:12 PM
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 01:12:31 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2023, 01:14:43 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 01:16:21 PM
1. Populist white Americans enrolled at top universities
2. Black Americans enrolled at top universities
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 29, 2023, 01:19:42 PM
Asians are going to sue the eff out of them (I hope).
They are if the ivies keep handing out legacies.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 01:47:59 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2023, 01:49:54 PM
What excuses will Asians and white people who don't get into elite schools lay at the feet of black people now?Wokeism / shadow affirmative action obviously.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 02:48:53 PM
There's a very good chance that the white and Asian applicants to Harvard (and similar institutions) are extreme lunatic #blueanon. As is the case with most #blueanon
So if MIR is correct and these rejects are indeed blaming black applicants for not getting into Harvard. I believe we can reasonably conclude that #blueanon white and asian applicants/rejects to Harvard University are to their core . . . extreme racists. Which really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone given the historical lineage of the EuroCaucasion driven Progressive > ProgLib > #blueanon movement in these United States. #gonnavirtuesignaluntiltherejectionletterhitsthemailbox
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzzBtlnaIAI4kNL?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 02:59:13 PM
Post by: Kid In the Hall on June 29, 2023, 04:11:30 PM
There's a very high probability that the white and Asian applicants to Harvard are from #blueanon families and given the #blueanon stranglehold on institutions like Harvard.
There's a very good chance that the white and Asian applicants to Harvard (and similar institutions) are extreme lunatic #blueanon. As is the case with most #blueanon
So if MIR is correct and these rejects are indeed blaming black applicants for not getting into Harvard. I believe we can reasonably conclude that #blueanon white and asian applicants/rejects to Harvard University are to their core . . . extreme racists. Which really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone given the historical lineage of the EuroCaucasion driven Progressive > ProgLib > #blueanon movement in these United States. #gonnavirtuesignaluntiltherejectionletterhitsthemailbox
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzzBtlnaIAI4kNL?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Comparing/contrasting that with the volume of applicants would make that chart more worthwhile. If 3-4 times as many Asian-Americans apply to Harvard as do African-Americans, then the actual number of students from each race in any given class would be comparable. Probably not a stretch to presume that Harvard (and other schools with substantially higher student applicants than student admissions) strive to have that rough/approximate level of diversity purely from a volume standpoint if they can achieve it (even if they can't/won't actually say it).
Post by: MadCat on June 29, 2023, 04:23:17 PM
What excuses will Asians and white people who don't get into elite schools lay at the feet of black people now?Wokeism / shadow affirmative action obviously.
Deep State University
Post by: CNS on June 29, 2023, 04:24:33 PM
What excuses will Asians and white people who don't get into elite schools lay at the feet of black people now?Wokeism / shadow affirmative action obviously.
Deep State University
Public schools
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 04:35:17 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 05:55:05 PM
https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1674434150416404485?s=46&t=odWzhuZU7P443NcVwlC1iQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this is true and I saw this thread and thought that it mostly gets right the effects, but the last tweet about Thomas I don't think is true. He has a very weird ideology, but it is rooted in his belief that white supremacy is very real but that it is impossible to solve and that black economic freedom and black men leading black families was the "solution" in so far as it could limit the ability of whites to discriminate against black people. He is definitely on that Malcolm X framing about white liberals being worse than white conservatives/racists. Thomas was a founding member of the BSU at Holy Cross, it was a rule for every member to not date outside their race. Now obviously many years have passed and it is hard to know someone's true intent, but his dissents and writings are pretty weird so I mostly take him at his word on his beliefs, although not his bullshit excuses for why he thinks it is ethical to accept gifts for billionaires. I think that defense is largely a hit dog hollering like his Anita Hill defense. I do think he believed that it was a "high-tech lynching" but only because his pride/ego are so big.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 05:59:51 PM
Post by: mocat on June 29, 2023, 06:03:20 PM
Post by: sys on June 29, 2023, 06:20:15 PM
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 06:27:48 PM
guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 06:33:44 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2023, 07:21:10 PM
It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 07:42:48 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 07:43:08 PM
Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2023, 07:49:38 PM
guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.Welcome to gringoville
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 07:55:46 PM
Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 07:56:51 PM
Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 08:00:18 PM
Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 08:02:29 PM
It’s not discrimination unless we say it is . . . #blueanon
The meritocracy must end unless we need the meritocracy/credentialocracy to support our political ideology and preferred policies . . . #blueanon
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2023, 08:06:10 PM
Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 29, 2023, 08:11:07 PM
I’m pretty sure we can all agree they attempt to discriminate on intellectual ability at least.Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 08:13:30 PM
Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
Post by: CHONGS on June 29, 2023, 08:13:51 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2023, 08:22:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 08:23:34 PM
I'm not sure if KSU has changed all that much, but they gave about zero fucks about getting minority students to attend. You could have a 1500+ SAT and 4.0 GPA and be a "legacy" and they still wouldn't bother to try to recruit you. I assume the hostility was instilled from the top.Sounds excruciatingly anecdotal.
Do you have anything beyond your weird brain to back this statement up?
Is Kansas State University of Agriculture and the Applied Sciences located in a state that’s part of the Cracker Belt Quadrangle a particularly desirable destination for minority students?
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2023, 08:24:17 PM
Would you feel the same way if the tests they used statistically favored one or two races over others?Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
Post by: CHONGS on June 29, 2023, 08:26:38 PM
KU actually seemed to try though.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 08:35:42 PM
Of course I haven't collected any data, it's "anecdotal".Okay, well then 1000% a Chongs drive by.
KU actually seemed to try though.
Nothing to see here people.
Chong’s a catastrophe/BAC level poster
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 08:40:44 PM
Would you feel the same way if the tests they used statistically favored one or two races over others?Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
I don’t believe standardized tests are unfair or favor one over the other. If I thought a practice was unfair, I’d disagree with it.
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 08:42:49 PM
As the trophy spouse of a former pat bosco ksu admissions rep I can assure you the focus was squarely on casting the widest rough ridin' net you can even imagine and indiscriminately begging any and every kid to attend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Damn straight, and led to the largest KSU cats enrollment in history
Post by: bucket on June 29, 2023, 08:44:30 PM
Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
What about socioeconomic status? What if the student would have had better test scores if they had access to test prep materials?
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Well here’s one thing on it: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/Would you feel the same way if the tests they used statistically favored one or two races over others?Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
I don’t believe standardized tests are unfair or favor one over the other. If I thought a practice was unfair, I’d disagree with it.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 08:58:46 PM
Would you feel the same way if the tests they used statistically favored one or two races over others?Discrimination typically connotes something unfair about the process. If your gripe is that colleges shouldn’t have any selection criteria then go off I guess.Having an “admissions office” is discrimination by definition. Be honest about it.Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
Yes.
Imo the simple formula of test scores + GPA is more fair than test scores + GPA + race, gender, etc.
Also imo Harvard has the right to discriminate however it wants.
I don’t believe standardized tests are unfair or favor one over the other. If I thought a practice was unfair, I’d disagree with it.
You don't believe? Do you not believe because you think the several studies that show standardized tests are biased aren't real, or did you form this opinion on nothing more than your feeling, or something else.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 09:09:56 PM
First of all, doing that would absolutely kill competition. Second, students have so much more to offer universities other than test scores and grades. Elite schools do and will continue to look at the whole student because a school full of book nerds with no social skills and no ambition to do anything other than study creates a place that no one wants to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend. Even the most elite schools, Harvard isn't one, like MIT and Harvey Mudd sell student life to prospective students. These schools, again more than the Ivys, absolutely care about academic accomplishments, but as a means to judge that they're up for the rigor, not as a sole means for admission, that's crazy and there isn't an admissions office in America that would actual want that.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 09:19:16 PM
The Asians who brought this lawsuit will be very disappointed to compare this number to the numbers of black students in the '25-'26 class. The white man who recruited the Asian student for this lawsuit will continue to cackle while rolling a blunt because the three niggers who get preferential admission every year gets the blame from mayo merchants every year while the number of Asian admissions stay exactly where they are now because the true reason for more Asians not getting in, legacy admissions, doesn't get touched or even scrutinized by people who matter. The hoarding of wealth and power continues while the people who should be bonding together to fight it have been successfully been placed assist each other.
YAY! :emawkid:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 09:37:28 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2023, 09:52:54 PM
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
Post by: nicname on June 29, 2023, 10:15:00 PM
Imo it’s better for students to study at schools and with classmates that better match their aptitudinal and academic profile.
A student that would do great at KSU, or Marquette or whatever, but struggle at a place like Harvard, isn’t better off at Harvard — again generally speaking.
Post by: sys on June 29, 2023, 10:44:30 PM
https://twitter.com/ericareport/status/1674453321078415362
Post by: bucket on June 29, 2023, 11:01:18 PM
i only invested a few minutes to investigate, but afaict, this account is real and the tweet is sincere.
https://twitter.com/ericareport/status/1674453321078415362
I’ve seen some call it a bot and it was created in September so I’m unsure.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 11:21:28 PM
i only invested a few minutes to investigate, but afaict, this account is real and the tweet is sincere.
https://twitter.com/ericareport/status/1674453321078415362
100% Lib catfishing, and pretty heavy handed too. If this person was who they say they are their phone would have been blowing up today. Pretty obvious, libs are the actual racists tweet. The blue checkmarks at the top of the replies didn't waste time parroting this talking point. Check the replies here.
https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1674589821942022145
Post by: MakeItRain on June 29, 2023, 11:23:36 PM
Got damn white people
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
You do realize that's where the 306 number I posted came from, right?
Post by: Pete on June 29, 2023, 11:42:33 PM
Post by: sys on June 29, 2023, 11:47:55 PM
100% Lib catfishing, and pretty heavy handed too.
my mistake. i was fooled by her tweet apologizing for this tweet. should have realized a genuine account would have deleted at the same time.
Post by: sys on June 29, 2023, 11:51:29 PM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.
like our beloved alma mater, most universities have limited opportunity to discriminate in admissions on any axis because they are not selective.
Post by: Spracne on June 30, 2023, 12:34:59 AM
Well said.It’s not discrimination. There is a very good reason for schools (and employers) to seek diversity in their classes. This idea of a meritocracy is pretty silly when you actually think about it.guys, it's good to not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1674501711610671125
Yes
It’s still discrimination whether or not you believe the ends justify the means. It’s a form of discrimination it appears that you agree with.
Just be honest about it.
I’ll read the next couple pages when I can, but I’ll return to this.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 30, 2023, 02:42:22 AM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.
like our beloved alma mater, most universities have limited opportunity to discriminate in admissions on any axis because they are not selective.
:thumbs:
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 06:02:45 AM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.The entire discourse is around Ivy League schools, which again is very telling. This isn’t about access to “education” it is about how we gatekeep access to the elite.
Post by: chum1 on June 30, 2023, 06:52:29 AM
https://twitter.com/MichaelSteele/status/1674556118738120705
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on June 30, 2023, 08:38:10 AM
https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/1674507630188851214?s=20
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 09:09:09 AM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.
except for the rich people who are donors and their white kids. Not a huge number but still a number
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2023, 09:51:41 AM
Everything I've read thus far indicates that both believed to their core they would never-ever be called on what they were doing.
Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to the fine print of alleged more selective universities knows that many give themselves a myriad of loopholes to their own public facing admissions standards. I suspect that both Harvard and UNC-CH could have made extremely basic policy changes that would have been defensible in every way, and instead they chose the blunt force discrimination path and got called on it.
I maintain that our world needs many more people of the type that graduate from programs offered at schools like K-State then we need Harvard Humanities and Social Sciences alums. 45.5% of the Harvard Class of '26 are in Humanities and Social Sciences. The remaining are spread out over STEM oriented, with 6% undecided. I would much prefer that our prestigious universities flip that number.
Post by: Pete on June 30, 2023, 10:15:55 AM
Two very dumb universities, brazen in every regard in their discrimination got called out and got their ass handed to them.Maybe yet another common ground topic between us, old friend Dax!
Everything I've read thus far indicates that both believed to their core they would never-ever be called on what they were doing.
Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to the fine print of alleged more selective universities knows that many give themselves a myriad of loopholes to their own public facing admissions standards. I suspect that both Harvard and UNC-CH could have made extremely basic policy changes that would have been defensible in every way, and instead they chose the blunt force discrimination path and got called on it.
I maintain that our world needs many more people of the type that graduate from programs offered at schools like K-State then we need Harvard Humanities and Social Sciences alums. 45.5% of the Harvard Class of '26 are in Humanities and Social Sciences. The remaining are spread out over STEM oriented, with 6% undecided. I would much prefer that our prestigious universities flip that number.
I only slightly disagree…as a worthless state land grant school liberal arts undergraduate degree holder, I have this notion that the only people who have any business pursuing liberal arts degrees are those at the elite schools. The rest of us normal humans need to focus on vocational degrees in undergrad lest we be chained to student loan debt that we are unable to service. Of course, if you come from an affluent family and are already financially independent, knock yourself out and major in Philosophy at K-State if you want.
I tell my kids “you are not affluent, and you are not going to get into Harvard, so get a vocational/STEM degree.”
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 10:47:29 AM
Post by: kim carnes on June 30, 2023, 11:07:48 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 11:23:32 AM
It’s amusing how important you guys think Ivy League skools are to someone attaining wealth
certainly doesn't hurt
Post by: nicname on June 30, 2023, 11:27:25 AM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.The entire discourse is around Ivy League schools, which again is very telling. This isn’t about access to “education” it is about how we gatekeep access to the elite.
Very true, and another example of true elites keeping the rest of us at each others throats
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 11:33:03 AM
It’s amusing how important you guys think Ivy League skools are to someone attaining wealthWealth and elite status are not quite the same thing.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 11:36:15 AM
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on June 30, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1674811612291649543?s=20
Post by: DQ12 on June 30, 2023, 12:15:02 PM
Post by: Spracne on June 30, 2023, 12:35:37 PM
I think including the applicant's race as part of the formula lends itself pretty easily to "discrimination based on race," but in the context of access to higher education (especially, especially to law schools), I think it's OK and should be encouraged. I'd be all for a straight quota system if that's what it took.
You say this knowing that California v. Bakke made quotas plainly unconstitutional. So, you're not really sticking your neck out, here.
Post by: wetwillie on June 30, 2023, 01:25:21 PM
lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 01:27:42 PM
lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
wouldn't you like to know....
Post by: LickNeckey on June 30, 2023, 01:37:21 PM
Two very dumb universities, brazen in every regard in their discrimination got called out and got their ass handed to them.
Everything I've read thus far indicates that both believed to their core they would never-ever be called on what they were doing.
Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to the fine print of alleged more selective universities knows that many give themselves a myriad of loopholes to their own public facing admissions standards. I suspect that both Harvard and UNC-CH could have made extremely basic policy changes that would have been defensible in every way, and instead they chose the blunt force discrimination path and got called on it.
I maintain that our world needs many more people of the type that graduate from programs offered at schools like K-State then we need Harvard Humanities and Social Sciences alums. 45.5% of the Harvard Class of '26 are in Humanities and Social Sciences. The remaining are spread out over STEM oriented, with 6% undecided. I would much prefer that our prestigious universities flip that number.
yes obviously two very dumb universities
spot on as always dax
Post by: catastrophe on June 30, 2023, 01:38:31 PM
You get to set the woke agenda.lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 01:41:21 PM
crush pelts on the vineyard tooYou get to set the woke agenda.lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
Post by: CNS on June 30, 2023, 02:03:58 PM
lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
This is super vague, and pretty much leads directly back to monetary benefits, but I would say that the number one reason to attend an elite school is network and access to opportunities via that network.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 02:12:18 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 02:15:01 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2023, 02:20:51 PM
So who puts themselves forward as a plaintiff in a case like this and what kind of attorney chooses to represent them? "Yes I beat my wife and kids and as a person who engages in violence against the vulnerable, I believe that I should have full access to the deadliest sorts of weapons:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1674811612291649543?s=20
magas who like to beat women because it makes them feel tough also like to have guns for that same reason.
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 02:50:20 PM
doctors are dweebs. Source: my CCWell sure but it is an example. Power and prestige and privilege and access are all part of it in addition to cash flow.
Post by: sys on June 30, 2023, 05:01:03 PM
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1674789036718952450
unfortunately, the biden admin is a hardened criminal with no respect for the rule of law and is already openly plotting to do the same crime again.
https://twitter.com/josephzeballos/status/1674873233495949313
Post by: MakeItRain on June 30, 2023, 05:20:54 PM
lol at people who have never been to Massachusetts thinking this is only about money
What are the other non monetary benefits of attending an elite school? I’m assuming political aspirations.
Social status, family rep
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2023, 05:22:42 PM
So who puts themselves forward as a plaintiff in a case like this and what kind of attorney chooses to represent them? "Yes I beat my wife and kids and as a person who engages in violence against the vulnerable, I believe that I should have full access to the deadliest sorts of weapons:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1674811612291649543?s=20
Big news for a large collection of LARP'ing Fantasy Cosplaying Locked and Loaders and their MAGABlaster2000 ambitions
Post by: MakeItRain on June 30, 2023, 05:26:21 PM
That being said I absolutely believe in affirmative action in employment and race based preferential policies in housing and heath care
Post by: catastrophe on June 30, 2023, 07:09:45 PM
For the record, I am against race based preferential admissions for colleges and universities. They don't make any sense and their ongoing legacy isn't providing more opportunities, you saw the numbers in Michael Steele tweet. The legacy of affirmative action in secondary education admissions is that it provided an avenue for racists to minimize the accomplishments of black and Hispanic people.I think a diverse student body is incredibly desirable as part of a college education experience (and ultimately better for the country as a whole). I have no qualms with “preferential admissions” if they result in greater diversity. It just seems like that has not really been the case.
That being said I absolutely believe in affirmative action in employment and race based preferential policies in housing and heath care
My answer would probably be to put way less emphasis on GPA and standardized tests, both of which are gameable at best and arguably influenced by systemic racism.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on June 30, 2023, 07:09:59 PM
Post by: CHONGS on June 30, 2023, 07:19:54 PM
Post by: sys on June 30, 2023, 07:24:20 PM
For the record, I am against race based preferential admissions for colleges and universities. They don't make any sense and their ongoing legacy isn't providing more opportunities, you saw the numbers in Michael Steele tweet. The legacy of affirmative action in secondary education admissions is that it provided an avenue for racists to minimize the accomplishments of black and Hispanic people.I think a diverse student body is incredibly desirable as part of a college education experience (and ultimately better for the country as a whole). I have no qualms with “preferential admissions” if they result in greater diversity. It just seems like that has not really been the case.
That being said I absolutely believe in affirmative action in employment and race based preferential policies in housing and heath care
My answer would probably be to put way less emphasis on GPA and standardized tests, both of which are gameable at best and arguably influenced by systemic racism.
i mean, way less gameable that everything else.
i'd also push back on the idea that universities (at least ones that reject 19 out of 20 applicants) can't and haven't engineered pretty much exactly the diversity that they want. if you look at incoming classes at harvard, they hit within like 1-2% of the same %s of black, latino, asian and white student each year. extremely unlikely that is by chance (btw, incoming freshmen classes are like 15% black, i think the figures steele mentions must include grad and professional students).
i skimmed through this paper, which has a lot of interesting stuff on harvard admissions. one of the interesting points was that, within every racial/ethnic group, the addition of the "holistic" measures results in a wealthier cohort than if academic measures were used alone.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 07:33:02 PM
Post by: chum1 on June 30, 2023, 07:34:23 PM
There really aren’t too many schools where “legacy” is even a thing that factors into admission at all.The entire discourse is around Ivy League schools, which again is very telling. This isn’t about access to “education” it is about how we gatekeep access to the elite.
Yeah, and that plenty of white people feel it's important to exclude black and brown people.
https://twitter.com/MattZeitlin/status/1674532525069197322
Post by: sys on June 30, 2023, 07:58:42 PM
https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang/status/1674916609071386625
Post by: Kat Kid on June 30, 2023, 08:10:26 PM
it has been interesting to watch the conversation both on twitter and here, blithely determined to pretend the issue is about white and black, all but completely ignoring the asian americans that were discriminated against. it's forever 1866 in america.
https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang/status/1674916609071386625
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-admits-record-number-asian-american-students-black-latino-admi-rcna77923
Where is the outrage about legacy admissions? Not here.
Post by: chum1 on June 30, 2023, 08:17:46 PM
it has been interesting to watch the conversation both on twitter and here, blithely determined to pretend the issue is about white and black, all but completely ignoring the asian americans that were discriminated against. it's forever 1866 in america.
https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang/status/1674916609071386625
The elitism factory perspective is the only one that makes sense to me. (I think talking about merit-based stuff here ends up being incoherent/contradictory.) And from EFP, they're overrepresented.
Post by: Spracne on June 30, 2023, 08:32:40 PM
it has been interesting to watch the conversation both on twitter and here, blithely determined to pretend the issue is about white and black, all but completely ignoring the asian americans that were discriminated against. it's forever 1866 in america.
https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang/status/1674916609071386625
That’s because if you knew anything at all about the group behind this litigation and its zealous financier and leader, you’d know it was not really about Asian-Americans. They were merely used as a test case.
Post by: Trim on June 30, 2023, 09:28:33 PM
Post by: sys on June 30, 2023, 10:20:09 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-admits-record-number-asian-american-students-black-latino-admi-rcna77923
Where is the outrage about legacy admissions? Not here.
i don't really understand why people think the legacy whatabout is persuasive, but in this case i also don't understand the pairing of your caption and the article you linked. that article discusses legacy and other preferred admits and quotes extensively from a person making the point that those preferred admits act contra to racial preferences for black and latino students (and both have the effect of reducing the number of asian admits).
Post by: sys on June 30, 2023, 10:25:42 PM
That’s because if you knew anything at all about the group behind this litigation and its zealous financier and leader, you’d know it was not really about Asian-Americans. They were merely used as a test case.
i cannot adequately express how condescending and myopic it is for your reaction to an article noting how asians are being all but ignored in the discussion of a lawsuit brought by asians, which alleged and convincingly proved that asians were discriminated against, to be that the litigation is not really about asian americans.
Post by: Spracne on June 30, 2023, 11:01:19 PM
That’s because if you knew anything at all about the group behind this litigation and its zealous financier and leader, you’d know it was not really about Asian-Americans. They were merely used as a test case.
i cannot adequately express how condescending and myopic it is for your reaction to an article noting how asians are being all but ignored in the discussion of a lawsuit brought by asians, which alleged and convincingly proved that asians were discriminated against, to be that the litigation is not really about asian americans.
I’ve been following this case for a decade and know what’s really driving it. You, sir, are naive.
Post by: MakeItRain on June 30, 2023, 11:09:19 PM
it has been interesting to watch the conversation both on twitter and here, blithely determined to pretend the issue is about white and black, all but completely ignoring the asian americans that were discriminated against. it's forever 1866 in america.
https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang/status/1674916609071386625
I reject the notion that Asians were discriminated against for the same reason why I reject affirmative action in college admissions. They are claiming discrimination because supposedly their grades and test scores merited a larger share of admissions but this completely ignores the fact that schools don't select students exclusively on the grounds of academic accomplishments, or race, or legacy, or any one thing in particular.
I saw an interview with a spokesman for the plaintiffs who literally said "Asians get better grades because we study longer." First of all, who gives a eff? What does that matter to anyone? Secondly, it's tough to muster any sympathy for a group of people so tone deaf and willing to jump feet first into stereotypes.
Post by: DQ12 on July 01, 2023, 07:22:35 AM
Well crap I post on a message board is unlikely to change policy regardless of the constitutionality of my suggestion. But as always, thanks for the tip.I think including the applicant's race as part of the formula lends itself pretty easily to "discrimination based on race," but in the context of access to higher education (especially, especially to law schools), I think it's OK and should be encouraged. I'd be all for a straight quota system if that's what it took.
You say this knowing that California v. Bakke made quotas plainly unconstitutional. So, you're not really sticking your neck out, here.
Post by: Kat Kid on July 01, 2023, 07:29:35 AM
Because it is a tiny school so when you add up legacies, recruited athletes, and faculty kids that is almost half of all the white kids. The article also pointed out that Asians are now beginning to benefit from legacy admissions.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-admits-record-number-asian-american-students-black-latino-admi-rcna77923
Where is the outrage about legacy admissions? Not here.
i don't really understand why people think the legacy whatabout is persuasive, but in this case i also don't understand the pairing of your caption and the article you linked. that article discusses legacy and other preferred admits and quotes extensively from a person making the point that those preferred admits act contra to racial preferences for black and latino students (and both have the effect of reducing the number of asian admits).
The total enrollment of the entire ivy leagues is like slightly bigger than Ohio state so the whole thing is bizarre to me that the solution is not to demand that the schools increase enrollment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 12:51:38 PM
I’ve been following this case for a decade and know what’s really driving it. You, sir, are naive.
if i was so cultured and world-wise that i'd concluded that asians are incapable of thinking for themselves, inevitably falling prey to the nearest white man with a check, i think i'd hide my hard won knowledge out of fear that people might misinterpret my wisdom for something less savory.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 01, 2023, 01:21:22 PM
but go off, king
Post by: Spracne on July 01, 2023, 01:35:33 PM
I’ve been following this case for a decade and know what’s really driving it. You, sir, are naive.
if i was so cultured and world-wise that i'd concluded that asians are incapable of thinking for themselves, inevitably falling prey to the nearest white man with a check, i think i'd hide my hard won knowledge out of fear that people might misinterpret my wisdom for something less savory.
This is the same guy that is responsible for Fisher v. Univ. Tex. (I & II), Shelby County v. Holder, and Bush v. Vera, among others. His track record is pretty clear, and it's not about Asian Americans. It's because he lost a race for political office because he was in a majority-minority district.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2023, 01:55:43 PM
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 02:10:20 PM
I reject the notion that Asians were discriminated against for the same reason
the only way it is possible to reject the notion that harvard discriminated against asian applicants is by unfamiliarity with the facts that have been made public, so i'll outline them here.
harvard discriminated against asian applicants in two ways:
1) harvard used race/ethnicity as an explicit factor in admissions decisions to produce incoming classes with their desired diversity. race/ethnicity was used in the selection process in two ways. first, black and latino applicants were tipped up on their overall score (comprised of four ratings: academics, extracurricular, athletic and personal). second, after preliminary admission decisions were made, admissions officers adjusted decisions to ensure that enough black and latino applicants were selected to produce a class with harvard's preferred diversity. these facts are not in dispute. harvard does not deny doing this and it is well documented that they did so.
harvard's class has a finite number of slots available, so offering a preference to black and latino applicants necessarily reduced the number of asian applicants that were accepted. you are, of course, correct that harvard is free to admit applicants based on whatever legal criteria they chose. and they did do that; one of those criteria was race/ethnicity. at the time, that was legal, it no longer is.
2. harvard also discriminated against asian applicants by systematically assigning asian applicants lower scores than white applicants on the personal component of the overall score. this is necessarily more difficult to prove than the explicit racial/ethnic preferences above, however the data are extremely convincing that asian applicants a) received lower scores than white applicants in the personal category, and b) that lower scores in the category reduced the chances that an asian applicant would be admitted compared to a white applicant. i've linked the paper outlining that finding below. it is important here to note that this evidence of discrimination is based on the criteria that harvard chose, not any abstract preference for criteria (such as standardized test scores) where asian applicants scored better than white candidates and that the finding that assigning asian applicants lower personal ratings than white applicants reduced their chances of being admitted is after controlling for all other variables, including legacy preferences, faculty preferences, dean's list (as an aside, children of large donors receive a dean's list preference, not a legacy preference as many people seem to think) preferences and athletic preferences, where white applicants are more likely than asian applicants to have an admissions preference.
as such, there are really only two possible explanations for asian applicants, as a group, receiving lower scores than white applicants on the personal component. either harvard systematically discriminated against asian applicants via assigning them lower personal ratings or asian applicants to harvard are inferior to white applicants to harvard in the qualities that comprise the personal rating. criteria for the personal rating are vague, but a couple of descriptions of what it is meant to encompass stood out to me. the personal rating "is meant to capture personal qualities such as likeability, courage, and kindness" and an applicant that receives a high personal rating would be understood to be a "very attractive person to be with and have in your school community and widely respected".
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27068/w27068.pdf
additionally there are a couple of items which i think provide some hint that it is likely that harvard was deliberately attempting to limit the number of asian applicants that were admitted. one is simply the remarkable consistency in the % of asians in incoming classes. between 2009 and 2018, the incoming classes at harvard were: 18%, 18%, 19%, 19%, 17%, 20%, 19%, 20%, 20% and 19% asian. it is understandable that the percent of incoming classes that were black and latino varied little, as there were explicit processes by which admissions officers selected applicants in order to meet diversity targets. however, there was no explicit race-based metric used to regulate the numbers of asian and white applicants admitted. yet, nonetheless, the numbers of each class that were asian remained static. i find that to be curious.
another is that in efforts to recruit students to meet geographic diversity goals, the standardized test score threshold to be targeted for recruitment was lower for white high school students than it was for asian high school students. of course, recruitment is different than the admissions process. but that suggests that harvard believed, prior to knowing anything about an individual student's personal rating, that asian applicants would need higher academic metrics to be competitive than would white applicants.
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 02:14:44 PM
I’ve been following this case for a decade and know what’s really driving it. You, sir, are naive.
if i was so cultured and world-wise that i'd concluded that asians are incapable of thinking for themselves, inevitably falling prey to the nearest white man with a check, i think i'd hide my hard won knowledge out of fear that people might misinterpret my wisdom for something less savory.
This is the same guy that is responsible for Fisher v. Univ. Tex. (I & II), Shelby County v. Holder, and Bush v. Vera, among others. His track record is pretty clear, and it's not about Asian Americans. It's because he lost a race for political office because he was in a majority-minority district.
how do you figure he tricked the plaintiffs into suing harvard? man, i bet they were mad when they found out.
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 02:27:32 PM
Because it is a tiny school so when you add up legacies, recruited athletes, and faculty kids that is almost half of all the white kids. The article also pointed out that Asians are now beginning to benefit from legacy admissions.
The total enrollment of the entire ivy leagues is like slightly bigger than Ohio state so the whole thing is bizarre to me that the solution is not to demand that the schools increase enrollment.
the correct framing on that should be that asian applicants are beginning to be less disproportionately unlikely to benefit from legacy preferences.
however, as i pointed out in my response to mir and is discussed pretty thoroughly in the papers i've linked: 1) as a group, asian applicants do not benefit from legacy, athletic and dean's list preferences, and 2) asians were discriminated against even after accounting for those preferences.
so it's a bit strange as a what about. normally when dax pulls a what about it follows the logic of: you claim that x is bad, but you say nothing about y doing the same thing or worse. but in this case your what about is: you claim that harvard is discriminating against asian applicants but here is another way harvard is disadvantaging asian applicants but this way is legal.
Post by: Kat Kid on July 01, 2023, 06:07:48 PM
Because it is a tiny school so when you add up legacies, recruited athletes, and faculty kids that is almost half of all the white kids. The article also pointed out that Asians are now beginning to benefit from legacy admissions.
The total enrollment of the entire ivy leagues is like slightly bigger than Ohio state so the whole thing is bizarre to me that the solution is not to demand that the schools increase enrollment.
the correct framing on that should be that asian applicants are beginning to be less disproportionately unlikely to benefit from legacy preferences.
however, as i pointed out in my response to mir and is discussed pretty thoroughly in the papers i've linked: 1) as a group, asian applicants do not benefit from legacy, athletic and dean's list preferences, and 2) asians were discriminated against even after accounting for those preferences.
so it's a bit strange as a what about. normally when dax pulls a what about it follows the logic of: you claim that x is bad, but you say nothing about y doing the same thing or worse. but in this case your what about is: you claim that harvard is discriminating against asian applicants but here is another way harvard is disadvantaging asian applicants but this way is legal.
Over half the class is white, why did the lawsuit not focus on the ways in which white applicants were privileged if they took up over half the slots?
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 06:23:39 PM
Over half the class is white, why did the lawsuit not focus on the ways in which white applicants were privileged if they took up over half the slots?
they did. all that stuff in my response to mir about how harvard used the personal score to discriminate against asian applicants as compared to white applicants is from the lawsuit.
if you're asking why they didn't challenge legacy, athletic, deans list, etc preferences it's because discriminating on the basis of race is against various laws, but there are no laws against universities choosing who to admit based on alumni relationships, donations or athletic ability.
Post by: Kat Kid on July 01, 2023, 06:30:29 PM
Post by: Spracne on July 01, 2023, 06:41:16 PM
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 06:43:55 PM
But “legacy” is basically “white”
legacy is about 70% white iirc. but it isn't illegal to use a selection criterion that results in one race or ethnicity being over represented compared to the population (hard to actually say what the population is, since the admits include intl applicants). by that logic, it would be illegal to use standardized test scores or hs grades since those metrics would result in a disproportionately asian group of admits.
Post by: sys on July 01, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Post by: steve dave on July 01, 2023, 06:56:29 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on July 02, 2023, 01:49:10 PM
I reject the notion that Asians were discriminated against for the same reason
the only way it is possible to reject the notion that harvard discriminated against asian applicants is by unfamiliarity with the facts that have been made public, so i'll outline them here.
harvard discriminated against asian applicants in two ways:
1) harvard used race/ethnicity as an explicit factor in admissions decisions to produce incoming classes with their desired diversity. race/ethnicity was used in the selection process in two ways. first, black and latino applicants were tipped up on their overall score (comprised of four ratings: academics, extracurricular, athletic and personal). second, after preliminary admission decisions were made, admissions officers adjusted decisions to ensure that enough black and latino applicants were selected to produce a class with harvard's preferred diversity. these facts are not in dispute. harvard does not deny doing this and it is well documented that they did so.
harvard's class has a finite number of slots available, so offering a preference to black and latino applicants necessarily reduced the number of asian applicants that were accepted. you are, of course, correct that harvard is free to admit applicants based on whatever legal criteria they chose. and they did do that; one of those criteria was race/ethnicity. at the time, that was legal, it no longer is.
2. harvard also discriminated against asian applicants by systematically assigning asian applicants lower scores than white applicants on the personal component of the overall score. this is necessarily more difficult to prove than the explicit racial/ethnic preferences above, however the data are extremely convincing that asian applicants a) received lower scores than white applicants in the personal category, and b) that lower scores in the category reduced the chances that an asian applicant would be admitted compared to a white applicant. i've linked the paper outlining that finding below. it is important here to note that this evidence of discrimination is based on the criteria that harvard chose, not any abstract preference for criteria (such as standardized test scores) where asian applicants scored better than white candidates and that the finding that assigning asian applicants lower personal ratings than white applicants reduced their chances of being admitted is after controlling for all other variables, including legacy preferences, faculty preferences, dean's list (as an aside, children of large donors receive a dean's list preference, not a legacy preference as many people seem to think) preferences and athletic preferences, where white applicants are more likely than asian applicants to have an admissions preference.
as such, there are really only two possible explanations for asian applicants, as a group, receiving lower scores than white applicants on the personal component. either harvard systematically discriminated against asian applicants via assigning them lower personal ratings or asian applicants to harvard are inferior to white applicants to harvard in the qualities that comprise the personal rating. criteria for the personal rating are vague, but a couple of descriptions of what it is meant to encompass stood out to me. the personal rating "is meant to capture personal qualities such as likeability, courage, and kindness" and an applicant that receives a high personal rating would be understood to be a "very attractive person to be with and have in your school community and widely respected".
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27068/w27068.pdf
additionally there are a couple of items which i think provide some hint that it is likely that harvard was deliberately attempting to limit the number of asian applicants that were admitted. one is simply the remarkable consistency in the % of asians in incoming classes. between 2009 and 2018, the incoming classes at harvard were: 18%, 18%, 19%, 19%, 17%, 20%, 19%, 20%, 20% and 19% asian. it is understandable that the percent of incoming classes that were black and latino varied little, as there were explicit processes by which admissions officers selected applicants in order to meet diversity targets. however, there was no explicit race-based metric used to regulate the numbers of asian and white applicants admitted. yet, nonetheless, the numbers of each class that were asian remained static. i find that to be curious.
another is that in efforts to recruit students to meet geographic diversity goals, the standardized test score threshold to be targeted for recruitment was lower for white high school students than it was for asian high school students. of course, recruitment is different than the admissions process. but that suggests that harvard believed, prior to knowing anything about an individual student's personal rating, that asian applicants would need higher academic metrics to be competitive than would white applicants.
I'm modifying this because I see you addressed most of this with kk and spracs in following posts, still curious about what I concluded with
You seem to have a decent amount of theories and conclusions mixed in with these facts.
I'm curious as to how you can lay out your point #2 and simultaneously argue that the Asians in this lawsuit aren't either willingly or unintentionally being used by Edward Blum. I may be misreading what you posted, but isn't your argument, particularly in point two, that Asians are being discriminated against and white students seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of this discrimination? None of the data and conclusions you made in point two seem to be available on Students for Fair Admission's website. Their latest posted press release also says nothing about legacy admissions. This seems like using black and Hispanic college admissions was a calculated decision to follow the path of least resistance, even though it will do little to nothing to change the supposed desired goal of ensuring Asian students get the level of admissions they have "earned."
Post by: Kat Kid on July 03, 2023, 03:11:57 PM
Post by: Cire on July 03, 2023, 04:35:04 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-children-affirmative-action.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShareThis ought to be rich
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on July 03, 2023, 05:33:36 PM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 03, 2023, 08:37:44 PM
Eh. Without knowing anything about this, it has either been challenged before and rejected or it has never been challenged before because there’s no legal basis for it. Either way I don’t see it even getting a look from the Supreme Court.
When it comes to completely dumb crap the SC is willing to hear, I don’t think we’ve hit rock bottom yet
Post by: Institutional Control on July 05, 2023, 07:57:52 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on July 05, 2023, 11:59:45 AM
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/university-of-missouri-system-to-end-race-based-scholarships-after-supreme-court-ruling/article_7b16897c-16cb-11ee-b439-ef1c8cd3b142.html
The University of Missouri system complied with that? What the eff? They didn't have to comply with that. rough ridin' slavers. Minority scholarships have literally nothing to do with the supreme court ruling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 05, 2023, 12:27:13 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on July 05, 2023, 11:44:54 PM
I can see the parallel. It's wrong of them to comply before they have to, but if someone files a lawsuit, this court would declare minority scholarships unconstitutional.
I don't think that's a given, either way the University of Missouri should have been prepared to fight for their students and not immediately roll over to the Missouri Attorney General. Of course, those in the know of system president, Mun Choi, aren't surprised by him doing this.
https://twitter.com/NilsHeadley/status/1675353927565582337
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2023, 12:31:16 PM
SMDH
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02
Post by: chum1 on July 24, 2023, 10:08:13 AM
https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1683443795994501120
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on July 24, 2023, 11:15:28 AM
Post by: sys on July 24, 2023, 02:13:54 PM
Interesting observation. Though, I feel like this group would still be voicing grievances even if they were above the line.
https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1683443795994501120
it's a good illustration of why the legacy admit discussion is so charged.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on January 31, 2024, 09:16:38 AM
This was a great addition to the court. :whistle1: (ftp://:whistle1:)
Post by: catastrophe on January 31, 2024, 10:42:50 AM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on January 31, 2024, 11:02:03 AM
I think it gives you a decent glimpse into who on the court takes their job seriously.
I think it shows more than just that.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 31, 2024, 01:49:01 PM
Post by: Spracne on January 31, 2024, 01:52:15 PM
I think it gives you a decent glimpse into who on the court takes their job seriously.
I think it shows more than just that.
What do you think it shows?
Post by: I_have_purplewood on January 31, 2024, 02:32:47 PM
I think it gives you a decent glimpse into who on the court takes their job seriously.
I think it shows more than just that.
What do you think it shows?
'As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.'
CANON 3: A JUSTICE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
A. RESPONSIBILITIES. A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
She's traumatized by conservative victories? That shouldn't really be the case should it? And yes, they are all partisan but I was surprised she was so open about it in public.
Post by: Spracne on January 31, 2024, 03:06:53 PM
I think it gives you a decent glimpse into who on the court takes their job seriously.
I think it shows more than just that.
What do you think it shows?
'As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.'
CANON 3: A JUSTICE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
A. RESPONSIBILITIES. A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
She's traumatized by conservative victories? That shouldn't really be the case should it? And yes, they are all partisan but I was surprised she was so open about it in public.
Quote
“But it is still work that is all-consuming and I understand the impact the court has on people and on the country, and sometimes the world. And so it is what keeps me going.”
Post by: catastrophe on January 31, 2024, 03:21:11 PM
The characterization of those as “conservative victories” is from the NY post. Just based on the article she basically only said she takes it hard when she has a strong opinion on important constitutional issues that is not shared by the majority of her colleagues.I think it gives you a decent glimpse into who on the court takes their job seriously.
I think it shows more than just that.
What do you think it shows?
'As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.'
CANON 3: A JUSTICE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
A. RESPONSIBILITIES. A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
She's traumatized by conservative victories? That shouldn't really be the case should it? And yes, they are all partisan but I was surprised she was so open about it in public.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on January 31, 2024, 06:23:25 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on January 31, 2024, 09:20:51 PM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on January 31, 2024, 09:52:16 PM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't recall accusing Thomas of whining in public, please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I was talking about -- and I think you understood but perhaps were just choosing to be willfully obtuse -- was the broader term of shenanigans. In this specific example, you were lamenting that Sotomayor is "whining" so openly. I'm saying if that -- (again, "that" being a SC Justice "whining publicly) if that offends your delicate sensibilities...well this other fella might have you downright clutching your pearls.
I'm honestly kind of surprised you weren't able to follow along on that one, it seems like an incredibly simple concept.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2024, 09:42:56 AM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's openly bitched and moaned about being underpaid, but he's too lazy to go get a better job.
Post by: CNS on February 02, 2024, 12:44:32 PM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's openly bitched and moaned about being underpaid, but he's too lazy to go get a better job.
Well, he seems to have picked up a side hustle.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 02, 2024, 02:45:54 PM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's openly bitched and moaned about being underpaid, but he's too lazy to go get a better job.
rough ridin' ironic
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on February 02, 2024, 04:22:40 PM
Purp if these kinds of shenanigans get you charged up...wait til I tell you about this guy Clarence Thomas...
So your reading comprehension has let you down again. I said they are ALL partisan but I was surprised she was as open as she was about it in public. I don't think I've heard Thomas whine like she did? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's openly bitched and moaned about being underpaid, but he's too lazy to go get a better job.
rough ridin' ironic
ok but that's totally different, you guys
Post by: chum1 on April 25, 2024, 01:25:21 PM
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1783538388215181544
Post by: CNS on April 25, 2024, 01:31:58 PM
Post by: Spracne on April 25, 2024, 01:35:18 PM
Am I just being a little bitch in thinking that this presidential immunity thing might be super important and perhaps might be something that will eff this whole thing up?
I think there's no way SCOTUS will say that a President has total and complete immunity while in office (note that the documents case would still survive). However, I also said there's no way they'd overturn Roe and its progeny, so what the hell do I know?
Post by: Pete on April 25, 2024, 01:35:22 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on April 25, 2024, 01:37:59 PM
Post by: CNS on April 25, 2024, 02:04:32 PM
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 25, 2024, 02:08:13 PM
Depends upon how broad it can be interpreted. Biden really should consider arresting trump and putting him in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. They can sort it all out in December.
He could do it with supreme court justices, too. No need to expand the court that way.
Post by: MadCat on April 25, 2024, 02:47:32 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on April 25, 2024, 03:02:01 PM
Depends upon how broad it can be interpreted. Biden really should consider arresting trump and putting him in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. They can sort it all out in December.
I enjoyed this
https://twitter.com/poorlyreasoned/status/1783501148487307430
Post by: catastrophe on April 25, 2024, 04:22:23 PM
I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2024, 04:57:45 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2024, 05:08:12 PM
Once upon a time the Prog-Libs hate hate hated the DOJ and the FBI, but after full assimilation, that's a bygone era
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 25, 2024, 05:14:53 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2024, 05:15:52 PM
I was told that calling our executive branch a "regime" was very triggering for #blueanon
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2024, 05:16:16 PM
Obama :curse:
Someone is showing they don't have a clue . . . again and as usual
Post by: star seed 7 on April 25, 2024, 05:32:00 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2024, 05:33:28 PM
:curse: :curse: about someone discussing actual court events that took place today . . . in the SCOTUS thread
So positively #onbrand :thumbsup:
Post by: CNS on April 25, 2024, 06:38:06 PM
I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
Unless Trump wins, I assume.
Post by: Spracne on April 25, 2024, 06:46:53 PM
I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
Unless Trump wins, I assume.
There's still the Georgia case.
Post by: Pete on April 25, 2024, 07:19:20 PM
I assume Trump’s day 1 focus is to pardon himself and friends of any and all federal crimes, and petition the SC to stop that Georgia case.I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
Unless Trump wins, I assume.
There's still the Georgia case.
Post by: CNS on April 25, 2024, 07:46:36 PM
Do crime.
No consequences.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 26, 2024, 06:08:35 AM
I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
The fact that the court even agreed to hear the case at all should be incredibly alarming. I will admit I am no SCOTUS scholar and this may be a question for spracs et al but has SCOTUS ever agreed to hear a case that would directly (or maybe more precisely, immediately) impact so few people? Seems like usually they are ruling on topics that will then apply to several many Americans on day 1 and many more in the future. Even if presidents lived forever we are still talking about a ruling that will directly impact fewer than 50 total people (and that includes in the future bc if trump gets what he wants he will be the last president)
Post by: Spracne on April 26, 2024, 07:24:03 AM
Also, my memory is a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure it only takes 4 votes to grant certiorari. So merely granting cert is not an automatic indication of how the Court will rule. On the other hand, this Court sucks crap, so who knows?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 10:47:43 AM
We already know that this DOJ is clearly on the side of allowing the President unlimited powers to declare anything and anyone a threat to national security . . . :frown:
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 26, 2024, 10:50:17 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 10:52:56 AM
It's fascinating to watch #blueanon invoke it's unilateral rulings and declarations and then meltdown when similar actions by #blueanon political leaders are discussed and brought into the discussion of precedence.
The "oh ya see, that was different ya see" explainoBOTS of #blueanon are :lol: :lol: :lol:
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 26, 2024, 10:56:17 AM
Post by: cfbandyman on April 26, 2024, 11:00:00 AM
I assume Trump’s day 1 focus is to pardon himself and friends of any and all federal crimes, and petition the SC to stop that Georgia case.I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power?
There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power.
Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made. Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?
I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.
Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.
That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.
Unless Trump wins, I assume.
There's still the Georgia case.
Oh 100%. The amount of pardons to himself and others will fly like crazy. All part of his one day dictatorship he keeps going on about
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 26, 2024, 11:10:08 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 11:38:20 AM
If Trump gets found guilty, he's realistically looking at a fine and probation. Maybe house arrest, depending on which trials he loses. Better get the supreme court to make sure that doesn't happen.
guilt/innocence, sentencing . . . I am not talking about any of those things.
amazing . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 11:39:10 AM
Dark Brandon would absolutely go off. imagine him crushing eric and kushner just for giggles
See above if you want to understand what Team Locked and Loaded aka The MAGA Blasters fantasize about . . .
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 26, 2024, 11:45:21 AM
If Trump gets found guilty, he's realistically looking at a fine and probation. Maybe house arrest, depending on which trials he loses. Better get the supreme court to make sure that doesn't happen.
guilt/innocence, sentencing . . . I am not talking about any of those things.
amazing . . .
What is it about legal action that you are trying to imagine a president constantly fearing?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 11:52:22 AM
If Trump gets found guilty, he's realistically looking at a fine and probation. Maybe house arrest, depending on which trials he loses. Better get the supreme court to make sure that doesn't happen.
guilt/innocence, sentencing . . . I am not talking about any of those things.
amazing . . .
What is it about legal action that you are trying to imagine a president constantly fearing?
By my observation it is appears that our #blueanon stronghold DOJ is wanting the unilateral power to declare at their discretion when a Presidents actions are official acts or private acts.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 26, 2024, 11:55:02 AM
If Trump gets found guilty, he's realistically looking at a fine and probation. Maybe house arrest, depending on which trials he loses. Better get the supreme court to make sure that doesn't happen.
guilt/innocence, sentencing . . . I am not talking about any of those things.
amazing . . .
What is it about legal action that you are trying to imagine a president constantly fearing?
By my observation it is appears that our #blueanon stronghold DOJ is wanting the unilateral power to declare at their discretion when a Presidents actions are official acts or private acts.
I believe that discretion would ultimately fall on the shoulders of a jury.
Post by: Spracne on April 26, 2024, 01:01:31 PM
Post by: Pete on April 26, 2024, 01:27:38 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 26, 2024, 02:43:11 PM
Imagine a world where you try to overturn a democratic election and, failing that, organize a crappy coup to "fight like hell" as a last resort to hold onto power ...
And then imagine that the DOJ tries to claim that you weren't operating within your official capacity as president while trying to overthrow the election results for your own personal enrichment. How could a president even operate with those types of constraints?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 03:26:03 PM
Imagine a world where you try to overturn a democratic election and, failing that, organize a crappy coup to "fight like hell" as a last resort to hold onto power ...Imagine a world where #blueanon forgets they sent in squadrons of lawyers to overturn a presidential election. Years later then engage in election outcome: Denialism, delegitimization and ascribe to every insane conspiracy theory imaginable in order to undermine a presidency, with seeds planted by the election outcome denialism and the claim of an illegitimate presidency.
#thumbsup
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 26, 2024, 03:27:38 PM
Imagine a world where you try to overturn a democratic election and, failing that, organize a crappy coup to "fight like hell" as a last resort to hold onto power ...At the prodding of a fascistic DOJ using legal selectivism against a perceived political enemy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk