Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

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 by TexasHooch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union.gif

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.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by TexasHooch
autocorrect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gatorubet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by TexasHooch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by JBJ
  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

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

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.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

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

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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

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 by JBJ
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union.gif

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



×
×
  • Create New...