The Supremes

[TexasHooch 4,949]

16 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

The people this hurts most are poor minorities in shitty SEC states where there was only like 1 or 2 clinics anyways. Those with the means will simply travel to another state for the procedure. That said, voter turnout is extremely weak in the low income minority demographic, and sadly not even this ruling will change that apathy.

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illegal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

Edited June 24, 2022 by TexasHooch

[Goredho 17,154]

How about them Democrats?!

What a fucking joke of a party.  The only good thing that may happen from this, at least I hope it does, is a turnover in D leadership top to bottom.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc... are pathetic, weak and completely incapable of devising a strategy to put the brakes on this conservative charge.  Real leaders need to emerge, the kind that would take a bullet in defense of their beliefs.  I don't care if they are left, center, or whatever.  The only policy that matters right now is preserving democracy and electoral sanctity, preventing further rights from being taken, and regaining the rights that are being stripped away.  And that needs to be overseen by people who aren't in it just for the money and influence.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,245]

 

[Captainant 26,861]

1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illeagal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

You joke, but states have already tried to pass laws that would penalize actions taken in another state. It's a clear violation of the freedom of travel and of the interstate commerce clause, but it's calvinball - there are no rules anymore. Anything goes if the refs like it

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,336]

48 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Brazen, conscienceless dishonesty is the GQP norm. Standard Operational Procedure

[Mdhorn 5,819]

13 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

And….. the NRA wins again.  They can get gun and anti gun people to buy weapons.  Yay.

Good thing there's several ranges close to DC, where non gun owners go to shoot their guns.  There's no lack of guns anywhere in the states but for some reason we have this notion there is.  There's this notion that people in former gun controlled areas, people didn't own guns.  That's not what gun control ever meant but whatever.  Most just don't carry but now, that shouldn't be an issue.  Crime should go down now, right?  Just like in all the freedom loving states where it hasn't.  

[TexasHooch 4,949]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You joke, but states have already tried to pass laws that would penalize actions taken in another state. It's a clear violation of the freedom of travel and of the interstate commerce clause, but it's calvinball - there are no rules anymore. Anything goes if the refs like it

I'm not joking.  I'm dead serious. Missouri has already tried it in relation to abortion. Some state will get it done.  

Thankfully, it will get legally challanged and will never pass muster with the Courts.  (OK now I'm joking).

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by TexasHooch
autocorrect

[Gourmand 7,761]

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Next up is gay marriage, same sex unions, and contraception. If you don't believe me, read it from the utter piece of shit himself.

 

Impeach that motherfucker for his seditious enabling conflict of interest. 

[6th Street 6,245]

10 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illegal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,300]

Don't care, got Arch. 

[Gatorubet 29,391]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

So, my peacenik, gun control wife just called me to suggest that we look into procuring ARs of our own, because she sees what’s coming.

This course is unsustainable. The center cannot hold - it has actually already collapsed. History tells us that this sort of dynamic ends in blood. And so it will. It is what they want, and when one side wants it, it happens.

I encourage all my liberal friends to joining me in gun ownership.  Buy Ruger 10-22 rifles for the skittish/wives who are afraid of guns.   No recoil, 25 round mags and you can carry lots of .22 ammo. 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Gatorubet

[6th Street 6,245]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I encourage all my liberal friends to joining me in gun ownership.  Buy Ruger 10-22 rifles for the skittish/wives who are afraid of guns.   No recoil, 25 round mags and you can carry lots of .22 ammo. 

Also, Thomas does not need to be near my deer stand. Ever.  Hunting is dangerous. 

 

You sound obese

[TexasHooch 4,949]

For fellow nerds...

https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=fac_articles

"The New Abortion Battleground"

At over 50 pages, I've obviously not made it all the way through, but it's really really good.

 

[wildcat09 28,387]

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

Good luck convincing Ken Paxton and Texas law enforcement.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,245]

 

[JBJ 3,591]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

[wildcat09 28,387]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

Nobody was ever required to get an abortion.

[Aqua Buddha 13,897]

6 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

They’ll make up a reason.

[Captainant 26,861]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

This reasoning will be equally applicable to gay marriage and gay acts of love. Congratulations, bigot. 

[washparkhorn 9,894]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Moderates are a greater impediment to justice than Kluxers and their ilk. ~MLK in a letter from the Birmingham jail

[TexasHooch 4,949]

 

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

They’ll make up a reason.

This won't be a restriction of travel per se, they'd be restricting your behavior when outside of the laws of your State.  There are plenty of laws already on the books restricting behavior.  This will be a very big new wrinkle to it but it will absolutely be attempted.

Edited June 24, 2022 by TexasHooch

[JBJ 3,591]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This reasoning will be equally applicable to gay marriage and gay acts of love. Congratulations, bigot. 

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[Brandywine 1,288]

Voting, or not voting in this case, has consequences. People that say they are more liberal but don’t vote because they don’t think their vote counts are getting payback. The Republicans are taking our rights away and cramming their religious beliefs down our throats. We are closer now to a Handmaid’s Tale type of country. As a religious nut friend I know said, “this is all God’s doing because we as a country couldn’t do it on our own.”

[wildcat09 28,387]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

It can be applied to pretty much any SCOTUS overturn.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

"Criminalizing conduct is actually removing a moral imposition!"

Fuck you, you disingenuous hack.

[Captainant 26,861]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

[Mdhorn 5,819]

And once again, for all the but both sides arguers--just say you don't know or don't care.  It's the lesser of the dumb responses.

[Gil Bang 25,509]

[Mdhorn 5,819]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

All of this is more in line with a police state. That's the only way it can be upheld.  

[TexasHooch 4,949]

Quote

 Justice Scalia went so far as to suggest that overturning Roe and Casey will get the Court out of the “abortion-umpiring business” because doing so would “return this matter to the people” to determine “State by State, whether this practice should be allowed.”

As we make clear in this Article, the opposite is true: overturning Roe and Casey will create a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion.

Instead of creating stability and certainty, it will lead to profound confusion because advocates on all sides of the abortion controversy will not stop at state borders in their efforts to apply their policies as broadly as possible. Antiabortion activists have made clear that overturning Roe is the first step toward their goal of making abortion illegal nationwide. To accomplish that goal, without Roe’s minimum protection, antiabortion jurisdictions not only will pass laws that criminalize in-state abortion, but also attempt to ban any abortion that has a relationship to their state.

A recent Missouri bill, for instance, would apply Missouri’s current abortion restrictions to out-of-state abortions performed on Missouri citizens. 7 After Roe is overturned, antiabortion jurisdictions will likely go further and try to prohibit their citizens from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. 

https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=fac_articles

[Loch Ness Monster 3,529]

29 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The economics of the decision are disastrous.

With the Republican gutting of the safety net that existed in 1971 - there are going to be a lot of hungry mouths to feed - if they get fed at all. 

Unwanted children create unfunded negative externalities.  

Crime will go up and the need for more welfare

[Smax 3,799]

Sad day forthis country, I'm embarrassed to call myself a Texan and an American right now.

[DixonHur 10,806]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

What moral imposition was removed?  

I can't wait for this answer.

[hobbes2702 12,481]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Really not that weird.  One of them is actually in the Constitution.

Someone should have aborted you 

[royiv 9,043]

33 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

You spend too much time in Texas.  This is not the case.  The population in blue states is still greater than the red states.  You are just surrounded by the Texags mentality and think that applies to the nation.  It does not.

Dude, California had more Trump voters than any other state. Have you spent any time in the neighboring county to your south?

[Helobious 9,393]

RBG set the country back ages and ages by wanting to cling to the limelight a couple extra years. I hope she’s never looked back on as any kind of hero.

[Sbbruin 21,567]

Just now, royiv said:

Dude, California had more Trump voters than any other state. Have you spent any time in the neighboring county to your south?

Yes, when you have 40 million people, you will have the most of just about everything.

1. California (Population: 39,613,493)
2. Texas (Population: 29,730,311)
3. Florida (Population: 21,944,577)
4. New York (Population: 19,299,981)
5. Pennsylvania (Population: 12,804,123)

[Hank Scorpio 17,691]

 

[JBJ 3,591]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

[wildcat09 28,387]

Just now, JBJ said:

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to any degree of bodily autonomy?

[Serak The Preparer 3,408]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

Have you identified the "moral imposition" that was removed yet?

[Gatorubet 29,391]

23 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

You sound obese

You sound reading comprehension challenged. 

[hobbes2702 12,481]

24 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

Or Texas

[JBJ 3,591]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What moral imposition was removed?  

I can't wait for this answer.

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

 

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to any degree of bodily autonomy?

Yes, even with respect toncertain abortions.  I actually would have joined Roberts' opinion.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[wildcat09 28,387]

I got it, bodily autonomy for you, none for women. At least you're finally being honest.

[DixonHur 10,806]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

How is that a moral imposition?  

You do know what the word moral means, right?

[hobbes2702 12,481]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

What a stupid fucking moron you are

[JBJ 3,591]

Just now, DixonHur said:

How is that a moral imposition?  

You do know what the word moral means, right?

Yes.  How is it not?  If it's not a moral imposition, what type is it?

[hobbes2702 12,481]

10 minutes ago, Helobious said:

RBG set the country back ages and ages by wanting to cling to the limelight a couple extra years. I hope she’s never looked back on as any kind of hero.

We can always count on you for really stupid opinions 

[Buzzrock 14,775]

How about them Democrats?!
What a fucking joke of a party.  The only good thing that may happen from this, at least I hope it does, is a turnover in D leadership top to bottom.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc... are pathetic, weak and completely incapable of devising a strategy to put the brakes on this conservative charge.  Real leaders need to emerge, the kind that would take a bullet in defense of their beliefs.  I don't care if they are left, center, or whatever.  The only policy that matters right now is preserving democracy and electoral sanctity, preventing further rights from being taken, and regaining the rights that are being stripped away.  And that needs to be overseen by people who aren't in it just for the money and influence.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Hopefully the first issue explains how the hell we make this happen.

[hobbes2702 12,481]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

 

Yes.

These two answers from you are not congruent in anyway