Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Lulz at this.  Remember folks: this is a reasoned approach to the legal analysis of the right at issue.  Also, this approach is completely wrong for any other right.

It's odd and definitely fitting to these stupid times.  This is the way that non-lawyers think of the law - that you can just say some magic words to undo whatever Gordian knot that has been formed in the substance of the opinion/document/whatever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think supporting efforts of those to get a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children seems pretty damn hostile to Roe.  Seems to me like that goes much further than wanting to overturn Roe as it would apply and invalidate abortion access in blue states. I bet democrats at the time damn sure thought the GOP wanted to overturn Roe.  They have said that all my life as have Republicans.

In any event, it's been for a long time.  And the Musk meme was starting in 2008.

Fewer than 40 percent of delegates at the 1976 Republican national convention considered themselves pro-life.  Public opinion polls in 1976 showed Republican voters were, on average, more pro-choice than their Democratic counterparts.  Betty Ford called Roe  a "great, great decision."

Donald Critchlow, "The GOP's Abortion Strategy: Why Pro-Choice Republicans Became Pro-Life in the 1970s," 23 The Journal of Policy History 4, 2011.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Lulz at this.  Remember folks: this is a reasoned approach to the legal analysis of the right at issue.  Also, this approach is completely wrong for any other right. 

Why wouldn’t you believe the majority about that, just because three of them also recently pinky-swore not to overturn the specific right their opinion overturns?

 

Edited by BrickHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

"Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a 'great misprision.."

This is from the opinion. This is sharing Hale's OPINION about abortion. Ctrl+F "Hale" in Roe opinion finds one citation that says "abortion of a pre-quickened child was not an indictable offense."  This is sharing a FACT about previous abortion law.

Again, expound. 

That's literally the equivalent of calling something a high misdemeanor.  These are legal terms not personal opinions.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's odd and definitely fitting to these stupid times.  This is the way that non-lawyers think of the law - that you can just say some magic words to undo whatever Gordian knot that has been formed in the substance of the opinion/document/whatever.  

now that i think about it, didn't bush v gore have some language in it that says something like "this application of the 14th amendment is unique to GWB here, don't anyone else try it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Fewer than 40 percent of delegates at the 1976 Republican national convention considered themselves pro-life.  Public opinion polls in 1976 showed Republican voters were, on average, more pro-choice than their Democratic counterparts.  Betty Ford called Roe  a "great, great decision."

Donald Critchlow, "The GOP's Abortion Strategy: Why Pro-Choice Republicans Became Pro-Life in the 1970s," 23 The Journal of Policy History 4, 2011.

That's before I was a fetus, so I honestly don't remember.  My entire life, the GOP has been pro life and anti-Roe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:


Good call. Guns also.

Might even be witnessing a shift in their attitude towards being pro-corporations & free trade as well now. 

Edited by YChang
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Immigration

Police brutality

Vaccinations

Self over society

Party over country

Conspiracy theories

Voter suppression

Book burning and banning

 

Just for a few, not to mention devolving into an insane cult of personality around Trump.  I voted GOP in 1996, 2000, 2004 and libertarian in 2012 and 2016 and Dem in 2008 and 2020. 

They became pro Russia as well.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Because you had the audacity to say that Republicans have been against murdering babies for ages.  I pointed out that they absolutely have not.  Did you not read the response or just not understand it?

Dude.  Struggle is a part of his name. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Coward? Ha no. If I'm on one of the islands that are being made by China. I don't think the constitution is what gives me the ability to bear arms.

What did I tell you, Russ?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

I'm all for BLM to keep taking suckers' money and buying luxury homes.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seasick Sailor said:

You seem to be implying that Thomas wouldn't vote to overturn Loving because he is in an interracial marriage as if there aren't many, many "pro-lifers" who have paid for their mistress', maid's, secretary's or babysitter' abortions. 

When it comes to racism, Clarence is blind as Uncle Ruckus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Radical racist republicans aren’t “pro-life” rather they are pro-unborn baby.  If they were really “pro-life” they would also be pro-BLM.

 

17 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

And anti death penalty

 

And they wouldn't be against every social program that helps people who are having a hard time financially.

To paraphrase George Carlin: Republicans only care about you when you're a fetus and when you're old enough to join the military.  In between, you're on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DDD Dad said:

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

Well, they literally got rid of their platform a couple of years ago so yeah. But other than that nothing has changed.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Coward? Ha no. If I'm on one of the islands that are being made by China. I don't think the constitution is what gives me the ability to bear arms.

 

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So it does give me the right to bear arms in China? Maybe stop being a coward and tell me what you mean, same for brisket.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution doesn't give you the ability to bear arms in China.  Just spitballing, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That's literally the equivalent of calling something a high misdemeanor.  These are legal terms not personal opinions.

Not gonna review the entire treatise to see if this was a true, clear-minded legal statement completely untinged with Hale's opinion. Let's stipulate that you are correct. Even with that, two GIANT differences:

1) One is written in 1973 and the other in 2022. It's a half-century later, which has drastically shifted the role of women in society. 1973 is not far removed from women are there for men as property mindset that many had in the 1950s etc. The sexual revolution and idea of career women was taking off. Let's take opinion of spousal rape in 1973 and compare it to 2022 for example. 

2) Roe is using Hale's piece as a counter-example: "Even in repressive times, this was not illegal."  Alito's opinion is using what was illegal in the 1700s to argue what should be illegal today. Who gives one flying fuck what a society that said a man could beat and rape his wife thinks about women's reproductive freedom in 2022??  It's abhorrent. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

So...pretty much the entire platform?

It's not JUST that they oppose their own previous policies when rrrrradical Dems try to pass them, it's the hysterical level of opposition to their own previous policies, in this case, Cap And Trade.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/oregon-legislature-climate-change-bill-chaos.html

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Not gonna review the entire treatise to see if this was a true, clear-minded legal statement completely untinged with Hale's opinion. Let's stipulate that you are correct. Even with that, two GIANT differences:

1) One is written in 1973 and the other in 2022. It's a half-century later, which has drastically shifted the role of women in society. 1973 is not far removed from women are there for men as property mindset that many had in the 1950s etc. The sexual revolution and idea of career women was taking off. Let's take opinion of spousal rape in 1973 and compare it to 2022 for example. 

2) Roe is using Hale's piece as a counter-example: "Even in repressive times, this was not illegal."  Alito's opinion is using what was illegal in the 1700s to argue what should be illegal today. Who gives one flying fuck what a society that said a man could beat and rape his wife thinks about women's reproductive freedom in 2022??  It's abhorrent. 

You're basically making Alito's point, which is that the Constitution does not protect these "reproductive rights," so the legislature should deal with them. The legislature has dealt with your other examples, on issues of employment, access to credit, spousal rape and abuse, etc. Why can it not deal with abortion as well, since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Who gives one flying fuck what a society that said a man could beat and rape his wife thinks about women's reproductive freedom in 2022??  It's abhorrent. 

Bro, you sound like someone who doesn't support rights and laws that aren't "deeply rooted in history."  Even my slaves are appalled at your disregard for historical norms.  My wife might be, too, if I let her read.  But she couldn't do anything about it, because she can't open a bank account or hold a credit card in her own name.  I slip her some cash so she can do some grocery shopping, but keeping her out of major financial matters is "deeply rooted in history," so I follow that lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I'm thinking of Russ Martin and trying to remember if it was actually a different surgery that he had on air. 

On 5/1/2022 at 10:35 AM, Sawbonz said:

 

Sorry

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution doesn't give you the ability to bear arms in China.  Just spitballing, though.

It's like I'm saying it's not a right that government gives me, it's universal. Don't know why my comment saying about lawyers using the word penumbra and calling it lawyer magic has to do with any of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

And whether Roe was rightly decided or not, this is a huge blow for stare decisis and signals to everybody that everything we thought was rock solid is now up to a majority vote at the Supreme Court without limitation. 

Bingo.  It's Calvinball now (it has been for a while, this just sealed the deal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

never was

Oh?

From the syllabus:

"the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...