Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 29591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #675 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.


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

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85176
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #676 on: June 28, 2022, 08:34:30 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.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #677 on: June 28, 2022, 08:44:08 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.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44805
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #678 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.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #679 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.


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

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #680 on: June 28, 2022, 08:58:19 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.
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.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #681 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.


Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #683 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.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #684 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.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #685 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.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44805
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #686 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.



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.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #687 on: June 28, 2022, 09:43:31 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.
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 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.   

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. 


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

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #688 on: June 28, 2022, 09:44:28 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.
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 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.   

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.
I disagree they would pass.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #689 on: June 28, 2022, 09:45:04 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.
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.
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 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.   

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.
I disagree they would pass.
Fair enough.  I think the numbers support my side but we're both speculating some.


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

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #690 on: June 28, 2022, 09:47:20 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.
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 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.   

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.
I disagree they would pass.

Same, I think our bud DQ is being a bit naive.
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #691 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.



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? 🤷???

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #692 on: June 28, 2022, 09:52:32 AM »
1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning. 

2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo.  Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #693 on: June 28, 2022, 09:54:51 AM »
Haven't been following the "nothing to see here" conversation closely since the same was said about Roe, but state legislatures are gerrymandered all to hell, don't reflect popular opinion, and are often ruled by conservative minorities.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #694 on: June 28, 2022, 09:59:42 AM »
How many of these states would this even be up for popular vote?

If the state legislature is the one needed to pass a law legalizing gay marriage then it's certainly dead in the water.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #695 on: June 28, 2022, 10:00:25 AM »
If we are getting out our crystal balls—
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.

Offline Justwin

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 924
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #696 on: June 28, 2022, 10:01:55 AM »


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).

Offline Justwin

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 924
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #697 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.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44805
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #698 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.



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.

Online Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29151
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan, Loves Lawrence and KU
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #699 on: June 28, 2022, 10:23:16 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.
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.

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.