The Supremes

[hookem2010 2510]

I'm having a biracial kid in a few weeks. Who should I tell him he can be attracted to? Other boys will likely not be an option by the time he grows up. Does he get to affiliate with both Asian and white women, or is he limited to only other asian-white biracial women? Maybe he's just shit out of luck because he shouldn't have been created from such an unholy union to begin with. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18303]

25 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Strongly disagree with that.   I'm appalled by the opinion if it comes to fruition.   But this absolutely should not have been leaked.   I'm old enough to remember when rules, confidentiality, decorum, etc. actually meant something.   This is just the latest example of all of that going out the window and it's not a positive development for this country.

[gmr548 16254]

13 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

I probably fall into the middle of opinion on abortion, but one thing that is tricky to me about the pro-life position is that if you believe the point at which someone becomes a human being at conception, then how can there be any exceptions to prosecuting the mother-to-be as a murderer except when the woman's life is directly threatened by the pregnancy?  Rape could be a mitigating circumstance at sentencing but it could not be an excuse or justification for the act.  The only sound position is to jail/execute rape victims who seek abortions.

Thus, if you are pro-life but believe in a rape exception, what is it that you actually believe?  Some criminal conduct other than murder has been perpetuated by the mother?  Exactly what kind?

It's almost as if it's not about "life" at all...

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18303]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Because it's less than 24 hours after the biggest leak in Supreme Court history and I was literally responding to (and quoted) a poster that called the leaker a "real hero"? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time I venture over to this board.  Even though I happen to strongly agree with all of you that are outraged at the substance of the opinion.  And said as much in the exact post that had nutjob Penelope negging me.  Odd bunch over here.

You are outraged on the substance, yet you took the time to complain about the leak itself.  Where did you get that talking point from...Tucker Carlson?  Just stop.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Her campaign was not fine. It took states for granted.

If Comey had kept his mouth shut, or announced that there was an investigation into Russian meddling with the Trump campaign, she would’ve won. Do you seriously think that holding some campaign rallies in Wisconsin would’ve changed the outcome?

[David Dennison 17660]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If Comey had kept his mouth shut, or announced that there was an investigation into Russian meddling with the Trump campaign, she would’ve won. Do you seriously think that holding some campaign rallies in Wisconsin would’ve changed the outcome?

Yes.

[Starfleet Command 441]

3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

It's almost as if it's not about "life" at all...

I think for most Americans it's not necessarily something criminal but should be limited in some ways.  The crazies believe it should be totally unrestricted or punishable by death even in the case of rape and incest.  Unfortunately that third group is in power.

[Blotto 23228]

15 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

 

16 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

That seems to limit its scope a bit.

Why? It certainly doesnt preclude the court from taking up cases on other matters in the future and applying the exact same "logic" related to issues not "deeply rooted in history". Why cant they go after gay marriage, apply the same logic, and still be 100% true to Alito's statement regarding the scope of the decision regarding abortion? 

['stache 21490]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Technically, Roe hasn't been law for 30 years.  This would overturn Casey, the current precedent.

The core holding of Roe was upheld in Casey, with some alterations. Read the leaked opinion, both Roe and Casey are being overturned.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

7 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

is he limited to only other asian-white biracial women?

I could live with that.

[Skipper 5952]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are outraged on the substance, yet you took the time to complain about the leak itself.  Where did you get that talking point from...Tucker Carlson?  Just stop.

There are 10+ pages of outrage and analysis about the substance.  Frankly, I showed up to read the latter from the actual lawyers as I haven't had a chance to read the opinion in full and unfortunately there isn't going to be a Daily Texan thread on this topic (where overly emotional constant state of rage posters like you and others are less likely to dictate what opinions are and are not appropriate). 

[JBJ 3591]

Just now, 'stache said:

The core holding of Roe was upheld in Casey, with some alterations. Read the leaked opinion, both Roe and Casey are being overturned.

Fair.  It changed the procedure but not the substance.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes.

Lol. Ok, whatever.

[Gourmand 7761]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes.

Oh please, don't be obtuse. She wasn't going to eras two decades worth of anti-Hillary narratives that started with Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, and Newt Gingrich and was amplified by Fox News and then picked up by dumbass idealist lefties with zero sense of practicality by showing up for some campaign rallies in Wisconsin in front of supporters who already were going to vote for her. This idea is just a way for people who were wrong to keep ignoring how wrong they were and blame Hillary for not being a perfect candidate.

[tx 3 putt 74771]

50 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I've seen some theories on how it could go down, but of course Sack may be right and that may be a bridge too far at this point.

 

 

 

and we’ll all sit back and be completely powerless to do a thing

[jimmyjazz 45055]

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

There are 10+ pages of outrage and analysis about the substance.  Frankly, I showed up to read the latter from the actual lawyers as I haven't had a chance to read the opinion in full and unfortunately there isn't going to be a Daily Texan thread on this topic (where overly emotional constant state of rage posters like you and others are less likely to dictate what opinions are and are not appropriate). 

Come on.  DT is exactly this much less political than CR:

[JFKFC 4875]

24 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

Thus, if you are pro-life but believe in a rape exception, what is it that you actually believe?

To me, abortion is a controversial topic because we are discussing two very different issues at once. I am an atheist Clinton/Obama/Biden voter who is against elective abortions. Abortions for convenience. I have never heard an argument for elective abortion that wasn't at the level of a 5-year old child.

 

However, there are medically necessary abortions:

Will it kill the mom to carry the kid?

Will the kid live in agony every moment of its life because of illness?

Will the psychological trauma of carrying a rapist's baby be unbearable for the mother?

I can't answer these questions, and unless you are a trained medical professional, neither can you. These are medical decisions and not decision to be legislated.

 

I'm fine with elective abortion going away. I'm not thrilled with the Theocracy that is upon us. 

[Nivek 16643]

51 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i blame america. we get the government we deserve. dems, republicans, independents, non-voters, people who've given up, doesn't matter. we get the shitshow that the elected decide to bestow on us.

I don't deserve to be saddled by morons.  My kids don't either.  

 

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Her campaign was not fine. It took states for granted.

Disagree.  People vote, not states.  People within those states had access to her and to Trump.  If one saw Trump as a candidate and decided to vote for him then they are the problem.    If anyone tuned into a debate or saw Trump the moron babbling about anything on his own, it was clear he was not qualified and his flip flopping on any issue to rile up a crowd was apparent to all but the morons that thought they were all going to be so rich, because trump told them that.  

 

[Neonmoon 38126]

11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Because it's less than 24 hours after the biggest leak in Supreme Court history and I was literally responding to (and quoted) a poster that called the leaker a "real hero"? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time I venture over to this board.  Even though I happen to strongly agree with all of you that are outraged at the substance of the opinion.  And said as much in the exact post that had nutjob Penelope negging me.  Odd bunch over here.

You jump into a thread late. Fox News has been harping about leaker angle nonstop because like I said, Republicans like to focus on decorum when horrific things are happening behind them. It has been proven in this thread that leaks out of the supreme court are nothing new, in fact, they're quite common. So you jump in with what is now considered a hot take, and are met with derision, it happens. so in hindsight, it might be prudent to read the entire thread first? 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8780]

If I ever hear a member of the GQP say something about legislating from the bench or activist judges, I might fucking lose my shit.  

You’re long past that stage

[Skipper 5952]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

and we’ll all sit back and be completely powerless to do a thing

If that does go down how in the world is Abbot going to try to justify his "Texas is open for Business - move your headquarters here" agenda with the corporate backlash after attacking gay marriage.  You can't have it both ways.  And businesses here typically tend to stay out of politics but don't think they will be able to if that plays out as she predicted.

[South Austin 51411]

15 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

To be fair, that opinion has this in it:

Quote

And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

That seems to limit its scope a bit.

Judges say shit like this all the time.  "This decision is confined to the facts before us."  And I'm sure conservatives will point to his "but this one is about the fetuses" comment in an attempt to temper the initial uproar over this opinion.

But as Brisket commented, make no mistake, his rationale behind this opinion and his criticism of Ogerbefell will be used by him and the other conservatives on the court to piss all over that precedent just like he did all over Roe.   

Look at it this way:  Read the dissents of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas in Ogerbefell.  And recognize that Kennedy has been replaced by Kavenaugh and Ginsburg has been replaced by Barrett.  Do you think that after this opinion overturning Roe, the dissenters in Ogerbefell who shit all over that opinion and are now in the majority are going to just rest on stare decisis and keep Ogerbefell intact? 

[kevwun 15192]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

If that does go down how in the world is Abbot going to try to justify his "Texas is open for Business - move your headquarters here" agenda with the corporate backlash after attacking gay marriage.  You can't have it both ways.  And businesses here typically tend to stay out of politics but don't think they will be able to if that plays out as she predicted.

Having it both ways is pretty much the Republican ethos.

[Foosters 17624]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Look at it this way:  Read the dissents of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas in Ogerbefell.  And recognize that Kennedy has been replaced by Kavenaugh and Ginsburg has been replaced by Barrett.  Do you think that after this opinion overturning Roe, the dissenters in Ogerbefell who shit all over that opinion and are now in the majority are going to just rest on stare decisis and keep Ogerbefell intact? 

Asking Ag with Kids to read? 

boldstrategycotton.gif

[Bama Chick 28595]

The amount of men on this board blaming RBG, Susan Sarandon, Susan Collins, and suburban moms for this is telling.  Maybe you could redirect your ire to Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Trump, Bush, McConnell, and the majority of men who vote GQP.

OMGGGG THANK YOU FUCK

[Lucid 1]

Shocking (not really) to see the level of dimbulbery that still persists six years later about 2016. Trump winning the primary and the general was only possible because the political establishment represented by luminaries like Hilary and Jeb is SO fucking dogshit that literal tv clown seemed like a preferable alternative. To me this is the only real issue from that election worthy of discussion, not campaign strategies or james comey or russian facebook ads or bernie bros or whatever the fuck else

[Serak The Preparer 3408]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Asking Ag with Kids to read? 

boldstrategycotton.gif

It's so weird how he all of a sudden regained his ability to post in the CR. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll remember that he can't post in here anymore soon.

[royiv 9043]

3 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

To me, abortion is a controversial topic because we are discussing two very different issues at once. I am an atheist Clinton/Obama/Biden voter who is against elective abortions. Abortions for convenience. I have never heard an argument for elective abortion that wasn't at the level of a 5-year old child.

 

However, there are medically necessary abortions:

Will it kill the mom to carry the kid?

Will the kid live in agony every moment of its life because of illness?

Will the psychological trauma of carrying a rapist's baby be unbearable for the mother?

I can't answer these questions, and unless you are a trained medical professional, neither can you. These are medical decisions and not decision to be legislated.

 

I'm fine with elective abortion going away. I'm not thrilled with the Theocracy that is upon us. 

I respect your opinion and anyone else’s that has a moral objection to, as you call it, “elective” abortion even you’re creating a somewhat blurry line between “elective” and “medically necessary.” That being said, why is it the government’s job to legislate the reproductive rights of a woman? You can be against abortion and also recognize that women have reproductive rights that the government should stay out of. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. 

['stache 21490]

5 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

To me, abortion is a controversial topic because we are discussing two very different issues at once. I am an atheist Clinton/Obama/Biden voter who is against elective abortions. Abortions for convenience. I have never heard an argument for elective abortion that wasn't at the level of a 5-year old child.

 

However, there are medically necessary abortions:

Will it kill the mom to carry the kid?

Will the kid live in agony every moment of its life because of illness?

Will the psychological trauma of carrying a rapist's baby be unbearable for the mother?

I can't answer these questions, and unless you are a trained medical professional, neither can you. These are medical decisions and not decision to be legislated.

 

I'm fine with elective abortion going away. I'm not thrilled with the Theocracy that is upon us. 

The argument for elective abortion is that the fetus is not viable and is literally living off of the woman's body and it's her right to choose to carry it to term. That's not fifth grade logic. I just don't believe think there are many women out there fucking around without protection or birth control expecting to use abortion if they get knocked up. If so, one might characterize that as selfish or immoral, but either way, its still her choice. For those who think it's a sin in a religous sense, let God judge them if necessary. Our laws are meant to protect freedoms, and the freedom to not have a child after conception is pretty damn important. But as mentioned above, I just don't see it being that prevalent, I suspect most abortions are under excruciatingly difficult circumstances that the law should not be interfering with. 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If that does go down how in the world is Abbot going to try to justify his "Texas is open for Business - move your headquarters here" agenda with the corporate backlash after attacking gay marriage.  You can't have it both ways.  And businesses here typically tend to stay out of politics but don't think they will be able to if that plays out as she predicted.

There are plenty of businesses more than willing to move to Texas, either because of or in spite of the state's conservative political bent.  I mean, Tesla JUST moved here.  Do you think Elon Musk is going to be surprised or offended by a total abortion ban?

"Corporations are people", with all kinds of embedded political angles.

Now, to be fair, Apple might leave . . . but I doubt it.  Disney sure as hell ain't coming, regardless of Florida's bullshit.

[Nivek 16643]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

I think both Texas and, to a lesser extent Florida, are moving towards the center.  Better people stay and fight the fight, rather than abandon the states the hard right.  Doesn't really help to have liberals move to liberal states.

I see what you are saying, but I have been seen ample evidence of the GQP not giving one shit about the will of the people.    Desantis has used fascist tactics to attack a company, ignored the will of the people, just as trump and mcconnell ignored their responsibilities.  Cruz even had a moment of a notochord develop and then grovelled to tucker carlson the biggest smarmiest wimp on tv.    

The DNC celebrates the freedom of choice and participation in the government.
The GQP celebrates the freedom from choice and participation in government.  

[DDD Dad 14060]

48 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Roe is overturned and is no longer precedence, the new case becomes the law of the land. 

 

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Precedent doesn't matter.  Seriously, we can have a long conversation about nuance, but the current conservative judicial approach is "we do whatever we want, precedent, rules, and order be damned" (oh the irony, these are the folks who cried about "judicial activism" for decades....again, every accusation is a confession).

In short, it's now just a game of Calvinball.  And I say that without any hyperbole....I've actually had this conversation with colleagues, particularly regarding any cases that involve issues that touch on current political events.  We can't accurately advise our clients.  What's going to happen in your case?  Well, the law is pretty clear, so the outcome should look something like X.  But....the current political winds blow another direction, so I can't predict what will happen.  The court is going to do what it wants, precedent be damned.  I am far from alone in this.  It's actually become quite problematic for practicing attorneys, because we truly can't advise our clients as to likely outcomes worth a shit anymore.

 

47 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Giving cover to the "but it's precedence" asswipes?

Precedent only matters if the court wishes to follow it.  The Court's long history of overturning precedent is nearly as long as its history of following it (see Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, e.g.).

43 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

To be fair, that opinion has this in it:

 

That seems to limit its scope a bit.

Until it doesn't.

[Ag with kids 576]

3 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

It's so weird how he all of a sudden regained his ability to post in the CR. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll remember that he can't post in here anymore soon.

I wasn't able to get into here because I had the moderators block it for me.  I guess they either dropped it or when I got referenced in here it opened it up again.  No idea how it happened.  But it did.

I rarely come into here, though, since the DT seems to be good enough without the vitriol.  Just thought I'd check out the hot takes on the leaked opinion and there's nothing in DT for that...

[Nivek 16643]

55 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Yeah dude.  I agree.  Because Trump set our democracy in a tailspin doesn't justify a Supreme Court leak.  It exacerbates the problem.

The leak is not the problem.  Unless you just dribble for minutes on end.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

46 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If I ever hear a member of the GQP say something about legislating from the bench or activist judges, I might fucking lose my shit.  

This ruling is the exact opposite of legislating from the bench.  Taking judicial power and giving to legislature(s)

['stache 21490]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

Precedent only matters if the court wishes to follow it.  The Court's long history of overturning precedent is nearly as long as its history of following it (see Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, e.g.).

Until it doesn't.

It almost always involves expanding freedoms by overturning past precedents of oppression. This is the opposite. It will not end well for this country.

[Nivek 16643]

  Why should Arkansas have to pay for the military?  Let the states decided.   

[tx 3 putt 74771]

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

OMGGGG THANK YOU FUCK

Don’t get your panties in a ruffle 

[DDD Dad 14060]

Just now, 'stache said:

It almost always involves expanding freedoms by overturning past precedents of oppression. This is the opposite. It will not end well for this country.

I'm not making value judgments on the prior precedents; I'm merely pointing out that stare decisis is not binding on the Supreme Court and never has been.  Sometimes that can be a good thing, other times not so much.  It typically all is dependent on your perspective.  

[tx 3 putt 74771]

New theory - a big trump story is going to break soon and ginni Thomas leaked this as a distraction 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

  Why should Arkansas have to pay for the military?  Let the states decided.   

National defense is an express function of the federal government.

Regulating abortion is not.  Should have always been left up to the states.

[Captainant 26861]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Should have always been left up to the states.

Just like interracial marriage too, right sack?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Captainant

[Skipper 5952]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are plenty of businesses more than willing to move to Texas, either because of or in spite of the state's conservative political bent.  I mean, Tesla JUST moved here.  Do you think Elon Musk is going to be surprised or offended by a total abortion ban?

"Corporations are people", with all kinds of embedded political angles.

Now, to be fair, Apple might leave . . . but I doubt it.  Disney sure as hell ain't coming, regardless of Florida's bullshit.

I was more talking about if Abbot enacts an executive order instructing clerks not to issue same sex marriage licenses in Texas as predicted in that twitter thread if Roe is shot down.  I think there would be more corporate blowback (particularly in light of Disney precedent).  I don't think there is a large company in the State that doesn't have a DEI program that will put pressure on management if that were to come to fruition.  

[Pancho 41825]

Up next for the Radical Racist Republicans is overturning:

Obergefell

Lawrence

Brown vs. Board of Education 

 

[Nivek 16643]

Just now, Captainant said:

Just likely interracial marriage too, right sack?

and civil rights.  And emancipation.  

[jimmyjazz 45055]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

National defense is an express function of the federal government.

Regulating abortion is not.  Should have always been left up to the states.

What an absurd take.  It's perfectly reasonable to say that 14A governs a woman's right to choose.

[DDD Dad 14060]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

National defense is an express function of the federal government.

Regulating abortion is not.  Should have always been left up to the states.

Jurisprudentially I don't know that I disagree. However, in practice many state legislatures (in particular Texas, Florida, and Idaho) have shown themselves incapable of legislating in good faith.  The end result is laws turning women and health care providers into potential felons for seeking abortions long before the fetus is viable.

The courts have expanded the scope of the 14th amendment over many generations to protect minority (not just racial minority but voting bloc minority) rights against the whims and oppression of raw majority rule.  To the extent that the SCOTUS decides that the amendment no longer provides that protection it then becomes necessary for the Constitution to be amended to provide expressly for such protection.  Relying on state legislatures to do the right thing is pure fantasy.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by DDD Dad

[tx 3 putt 74771]

Just now, Pancho said:

Up next for the Radical Racist Republicans is overturning:

Obergefell

Lawrence

Brown vs. Board of Education 

 

have to fight this woke culture and crt !!!!!

[Brisketexan 103148]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It almost always involves expanding freedoms by overturning past precedents of oppression. This is the opposite. It will not end well for this country.

This.  As far as I can think of, this is the first case tilting against Stare Decisis to functionally REPEAL AND REVOKE a right, vs. finding such a right that was infringed by past erroneous decision.

This decision is as if Korematsu was decided in the opposite -- the government has no right to detain people merely on the basis of their ethnicity because we are afraid of them, because that would violate all notions of due process -- and then decades later, the court said "nevermind, Korematsu is overruled, there are no due process protections against being detained by the government on the basis of your ethnicity being scary."  This opinion truly is without peer or precedent.  The only analog I can think of is Dred Scott, and the commonality is solely in how destructive it will be to the fabric of the Republic.

[Gatorubet 29396]

Mid-terms just got thrown up in the air  like