Jump to content

SKJ

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SKJ

  1. On 6/24/2022 at 10:11 AM, Johnny Sack said:

    Alito dunking on the dissent with stone cold facts:

    The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a “‘deeply rooted’” one, “‘in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; see post, at 12–14 (joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.). The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise. Compare post, at 12–14, n. 2, with supra, at 15–16, and n. 23. Nor does the dissent dispute the fact that abortion was illegal at common law at least after quickening; that the 19th century saw a trend toward criminalization of pre-quickening abortions; that by 1868, a supermajority of States (at least 26 of 37) had enacted statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy; that by the late 1950s at least 46 States prohibited abortion “however and whenever performed” except if necessary to save “the life of the mother,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 139; and that when Roe was decided in 1973 similar statutes were still in effect in 30 States. Compare post, at 12–14, nn. 2–3, with supra, at 23–25, and nn. 33–34.47

    The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position. We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due
    Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). But despite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage
    with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy The dissent attempts to obscure this failure by misrepresenting our application of Glucksberg. The dissent suggests that we have focused only on “the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,” post, at 26, but our review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period. As explained, for more than a century after 1868—including “another half-century” after women gained the constitutional right to vote in 1920, see post, at 15; Amdt. 19—it was firmly established that laws prohibiting abortion like the Texas law at issue in Roe were permissible exercises of state regulatory authority. And today, another half century later, more than half of the States have asked us to overrule Roe and Casey. The dissent cannot establish that a right to abortion has ever been part of this Nation’s tradition. 

    It's hilarious that we allow them to come up with new tests for whichever way they want to go politically. 

    The truth is that it's all political. 

    The history of the anti abortion movement was born out of racism. This is a good read: 

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/08/abortion-us-religious-right-racial-segregation

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    When it comes to foreign policy, Biden’s hit a home run. When it comes to inflation and gas prices and supply chain issues, those are global problems so I don’t know how any of those can be blamed on him. Of course the Republicans are going to blame him for them just out of partisan self-interest. Here’s something bad, blame a Democrat.

    The Ukrainians might build him a statue. They would’ve been fucked of Trump were re-elected. 

    Of course the moron Republicans want Biden to somehow take over the means of production in the oil industry so we can have cheaper gas prices,  but they also are strongly against socialism...

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 28 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    West Side Story kicks ass. Singin’ in the Rain was awesome and Debbie Reynolds was a total babe. Fiddler on the Roof is a masterpiece. I seem to recall liking Mame. When I was in my high school drama club we did a show called Merrily We Roll Along. I don’t remember any of the music but I remember liking it. And the story worked backwards in time. I thought that was pretty cool.

    I’ve never seen Cats but the costumes and makeup look pretty cool.

    If I visited Broadway tomorrow, I’d go see David Byrne’s American Utopia.

     

    Yeah... we're gonna need your man card back

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 2 hours ago, Caponata said:

    I still don't follow. Ukraine isn't tolerant towards LGBT rights at all.. 69% of the population do not think homosexuality should be accepted & only 14% think it should be accepted in society according to Pew in 19'. That's the lowest in Europe. Putin is a fascist dictator, he can say he's invading Ukraine for whatever bullshit reason but according to the data Russia & Ukraine are neck & neck on anti-LGBT sentiment. 

    You're right.  They haven't figured it out yet so they shouldn't be free

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 2 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

    Dumbest idea ever. Teacher is just as likely to miss the bad guy and kill an innocent student. Teachers aren’t cops.

    Cops can't shoot for shit,  really.  Teachers will probably outshoot cops with this 24 hrs of training...

    Hell,  I haven't shot in 20 years and I could probably outshoot a fucking cop... unless I was aiming for a dog

  6. On 5/17/2022 at 12:01 AM, MissingInAction said:

    Malaise? I know that none feeling quite well.

    I haven't had this feeling in quite some time.  When I was younger,  and deeply involved in bad,  bad shit,  I was seemingly dead inside.  Now it's been creeping back in,  like I'm dying more every day. It's like regressing into being dead inside very slowly. 

    I can't figure it out.  I'm doing well,  my wife and kids are as well,  and I'm just dying inside more and more daily. 

    It's not a choice,  either.  And it's not like I'm depressed.  It's just that either I'm beginning to become enlightened,  or done such shit,  or I'm really just becoming disconnected 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 7 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    It’s an unknown but many think that someone producing a previously secret pardon wouldn’t be accepted by the DOJ and the courts. in theory it gives an ex-president continued pardon power as long as the crime occurred before he left office and he was willing to lie about the pardon.

    and if you’re the person receiving the secret pardon, wouldn’t you want it to be fully legal by having it disclosed?

    But aren't people that are pardoned no longer able to claim 5th amendment protection over their conduct in that investigation? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 7 hours ago, Nivek said:

    Race traitor?  I thought only the KKK used this language.   I am so naive, and I suppose happily naive.

    Well,  I did do a rip in the feds,  and wouldn't join the white boys because I'm not a racist.  They used to say this about me,  well,  let me rephrase... one guy said it to me,  but not much after that

  9. On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, Nivek said:

    I think about this a bit differently.  From what I can tell, the Fox Viewer doesn't have an ideology other than just being part of the Republican tribe.   No matter what they say and how quickly they abandon that position for the opposite (Tucker and Ukraine) their audience will simply follow along unquestioningly.    They are victims of a propaganda and marketing blitz that feeds and exploits fears, or creating them when they didn't exist before.    The bombardment of violent rhetoric and victimization has whipped them up into a fervor.  Now how this has become a dopamine cycle for their viewers, I am not really certain, but they are getting something out of it, my guess is that it is a lot like those flat earth society members who are lonely people but they find acceptance when they can join a mob that doesn't judge them on their failings or insecurities.   

     

    Ha ha ha I've been called a race traitor many times.  I think it's funny as hell.  I am on the side of Bulworth and say we just fuck em all gray

    On 5/31/2022 at 9:37 PM, elfenix said:

    Anyone seen Marihuana: Weed with Roots in Hell? Now streaming on prime

    Very enticing ad, I must say

  10. On 5/24/2022 at 8:44 PM, F250 said:

     

    This the dumbest non-fucking answer for so many reasons. My biggest issue with it is that it cedes elementary schools to potential gun violence. Rather than address the many flaws in our gun laws chuckle fuck says "meh, we will just put cops in schools to shoot it out around the elementary kids." I'm not even going to go into the ridiculousness of funding or even worse using fucking armed volunteers. 

    This is a ridiculous solution and people repeating it should be mocked for their stupidity. It's essentially a Ralph Wiggum response. Cruz might as well have just said "my asshole makes noise when wind comes out of it."

     

    Except that armed officers have no duty to protect our children.  Their one and only goal is to make it home safe.

    What we ought to do is take all the secret service agents and put them in schools.  No more protection for politicians. 

    See how they like that idea.  Let them experience life without a security detail.  Cowards

    • Hook 'Em 6
  11. On 6/3/2022 at 11:35 AM, Neonmoon said:

    My favorite part is when she says Christian Nationalism will take care of the debt problem….checks notes….oh you mean the one Biden is already reducing in record amounts?

     

    Coming from a bitch that has had an affair,  and who's husband has exposed himself to minors...

    Seems like she should've been stoned to death,  according to her beliefs

    • Like 1
  12. On 5/16/2022 at 2:47 PM, fattyflattie said:

    I don’t disagree. As much as I hate the idea and can see the fuckery that’s going to come along with red flag laws, I’m getting there slowly but surely.  I have a real sense it’s going to fuck over a million innocents to every one it stops though. 

    So,  it would stop 300 mass shooters? 

    On 5/16/2022 at 3:33 PM, B00M said:

    "Well regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well disciplined... It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now"

    Source: 1st Google result of "what does a well regulated militia mean"

     

    Ooh look, a textualist! Break out the dictionary and see where militia indicates every single person should have an assault rifle in their home. 

    Does a militia mean home storage of weapons?  Probably the framers meant there was some sort of armory,  right? 

    On 5/16/2022 at 5:52 PM, B00M said:

    Hamilton in Federalist 29 is arguing that the federal government, not the states, is best suited to efficiently/fairly regulate ("provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining") and command ("governing") the militia. That's exactly what I said was meant by well-regulated. 

    In 69 (nice) Hamilton uses the words "regulate" and "regulating" in a negative way, like modern useage, as he's describing the absolute powers of a monarch in sharp contrast to the limited powers of the US President. 

     

    See above

    • Fuck You 1
  13. On 5/17/2022 at 5:39 PM, Ojo Rojo said:

    To me, the Supreme Court is the canary in the coal mine of democracy. It's very fragile. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. As I've said before, I do not believe the justices themselves are political actors. But the people who are responsible for putting them there certainly are. That is why Mitch McConnell dying a very painful, very public death would not bother me in the least. When Republicans started treating politics like a bloodsport, with a win at all costs attitude and the belief that it's okay to impose your will on others no matter what (hey, that's what winners do!), that is when our democracy was in serious jeopardy. We haven't reached the end or the bottom, I don't believe, but we're close. The outright theft of a seat on the Supreme Court put us close to the end. The pendulum is either going to swing back the other way or the U.S. will become a fascist state. True freedom, the way the Constitution actually means it, will no longer exist if the far right wins. There will be no justice, no due process. There will be persecution. There will be lots and lots of suffering and death.

    Yeah, except that the court is completely and brazenly political. 

    5 out of 6 right wing justices are groomed,  and became members of the Federalist society...

    They brazenly lied about their intentions in their hearings

    Then we get to the overt acts of uncle Clarence ruckus Thomas and his insane wife,  his refusal to recuse cases where she has material interests...

    Oh, and remember that hokey shit where is better that 100 go free than 1 innocent man is convicted?  They ruled that innocence is not enough to overturn a conviction...

    Is bullshit.  They're the arm of the fascists that gets to grant all the fascists powers... it's literally all they do,  is political bullshit

  14. On 5/16/2022 at 9:59 AM, wildcat09 said:

     

    For all of Roberts' efforts to maintain an appearance of legitimacy for the Court, he's pretty comfortable legalizing outright bribery.

    Robert's only wants to outwardly give the perception that the courts are not political.  He only wants people to think that they're not a political entity. 

    And then he wants to act in the most historically bullshit ways. 

    On 5/17/2022 at 11:30 AM, Dutchrudder said:

    Sooooo, that means Trump could take out a billion dollar loan to fund his 2024 campaign, and pay it back later with "donations" post-election? 

    Or he could get a lot of free speech from companies to peddle influence,  err gift a payback of any loans regardless of they were actually for a campaign or not. 

    Money is now absolutely free speech, and all bribes and grift proceeds are covered in the first amendment

    On 5/17/2022 at 2:29 PM, Brisketexan said:

    What's going to be FASCINATING is how this SCOTUS reads "full faith and credit" completely out of the Constitution:

    Alito will write the opinion.  "Because, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there was no longstanding historical recognition of same-sex marriage, a state-granted same-sex marriage cannot possibly be a "public act" to which the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution was intended to apply, and therefore, states that do not wish to do so do NOT need to give full faith and credit to a same-sex marriage from another state."

    Oh, and remember how a mere week ago, the Alito apologists were telling us that in no way does the Dodd  opinion mean the SCOTUS is coming for Obergefell, I mean, Alito even SAID he wasn't gonna do that?  It was a lie.  Like everything they say is a lie.

    Duh

  15. On 5/14/2022 at 10:20 AM, Bateshorn said:

    Even though you are on a break, The problem with your logic, which should be obvious, is you want the 2nd amendment to cover all the literally and rhetorics children and dependents  of this technology and philosophy, without extending it to any of the other amendments.

    Thats a logical fallacy.  If you want to lock one amendment in place, you have to lock all of them. So this technology is legal, in it’s original form.  But if you are going to accept Alito’s arguments about original and deeply held beliefs and reject the “living Constitution “. And especially a originalist approach: The SAW  or AR-15 are not consistent with that view and is subject to full and thorough regulation. The court must, under Alito’s thinking, limit itself to only debates about technology and existent firearms at the time of ratification.

    But,  if you look historically,  abortion was known by the founders,  since it had been preformed much earlier than the 1700's yet they felt no need to prohibit it because it was a not- so- common procedure of the time,  and it wasn't seen as a living being at the time,  since it was not post partum... and yet the knowledge of a repeating rifle should be taken into account with gun control,  and all science should be ignored.  

    But of course,  the most basic argument against originalism was that slavery was ratified among the several states.. 

    On 5/14/2022 at 11:10 AM, Bateshorn said:

    Well, it’s what obviously flawed in his logic about Abortion (if not Roe): there is zero mention of the unborn in the constitution. None. The first mention is in the citizenship clause in the 14th. Thus the unborn have no rights under a textual reading of the constitution. Or really an originalist, since the unborn are never discussed in the Federalist papers.  But women do have due process rights.  Thus even if you adopt a reading of the constitution that somehow gives legislatures the right to protect the unborn, it must follow the due process rights of women, which would give them the right to learn, understand, and resolve a pregnancy in advance of any state action.  I can see a reading of Dobbs that bans abortion after 15 weeks, but not before, because to do so denies a woman reasonable due process. A total ban has always, to my mind, been unconstitutional since the 14th amendment was passed.  
     

    And this says nothing of unenumerated rights.  

    And yet here we are arriving at the thought that amendments mean something to the constitution, and that substantive due process is of no concern... so,  also, see above,  but yet here we are,  about to ask own slaves again? If so,  do we also ignore women's right to vote?

    They've tied themselves in to so many knots that they shouldn't be able to functionality write anything,  much less an opinion...

    On 5/14/2022 at 5:15 PM, fattyflattie said:

    Well the supremes haven’t shit down their leg in 48 hours or so. 

    Just wait for this newest ruling... that innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction.  . It's amazing

  16. 18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    Growing up “surrounded “ by it is definitely not the same as growing up in it.

     

    My youngest daughter just reminded me that one of her her best friend’s dad is a Republican elected official in North Texas. they have 7 kid  and they are all what you would describe as leftists. Actually, they’re pretty middle of the road centrist but then you guys would call a Nixon a commie if he were in politics today .
     

    Anyway I don’t know how his wife is going to vote or does vote, but I do know that she got all the under 18 kids Covid vaccinated without his knowledge and definitely against his wishes. All of his kids give him shit constantly about his views. So he’s raising seven kids to cancel out his one (OK maybe two if his wife actually votes Republican). So hey maybe this replacement theory thing is really gonna happen

    To be fair,  women's suffrage isn't a long,  deeply rooted right,  according to Alito,  so hopefully he doesn't have to ever wonder how that dumb bitch would vote here pretty soon. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 16 minutes ago, SKJ said:

    I'd beat that old man's ass for him.  I should totally go do this just to kick the shit out of some old ass man who thinks he's tough... that would be a good day if r&r

    I don't know how this got into this thread,  but it still remains true...

  18. On 5/17/2022 at 1:47 PM, C-Man said:

    Meanwhile, I'd let all of you know where/when it was going down and I'd want this to happen:

     

    I'd beat that old man's ass for him.  I should totally go do this just to kick the shit out of some old ass man who thinks he's tough... that would be a good day if r&r

×
×
  • Create New...