Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

Just now, JBJ said:

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

So you're going to answer a question with a question?  

Explain how it's a moral imposition?  There are lots of things that that can't be legislated, are they all moral impositions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 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

4ea.jpg 

puppet-awkward.giflooking-around-guilty.gif

 

Edited by Gap03
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all notice JBJ thinks a decision prohibiting a legislature from prohibiting something is an imposition on the legislature but a legislature prohibiting a woman from doing something that might be necessary to save her life is in fact no imposition at all.  That's because he thinks gerrymandered legislatures disproportionately comprised of conservative white men is more human than any woman is.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

They say God now allows shrimp po’ boys and crawfish etouffee and Southern Baptist third marriages ‘cause Leviticus was changed, but the hate me some homos is still a thing.  

I can’t find it in my Red Rule Bible, but I’m assured that GOP Jesus approves. 

Obligatory:

 

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

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you're going to answer a question with a question?  

Explain how it's a moral imposition?  There are lots of things that that can't be legislated, are they all moral impositions?

Most laws are moral impositions.  Some are normative without being moral: driving on the right side of the road vs the left.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

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

yeah, except they weren't being dishonest. they were being clever enough to end around the democrats. nothing they said indicated that they weren't primed and ready to overturn the precedent. just that the precedent exists. 

it did.

now it doesn't.

i want to think this would backfire on republicans, but somehow, they've managed to convinced a large number of voters to vote against their best interests. they will continue to have success in this, because americans are stupid. also because the democrats are stupid. everyone is stupid.

fuck. i hope that some kind of movement comes from this, but all we'll see on tv are the freaks on both sides. and people will calcify in their decisions.

i will say that as someone calcified in my fucking decisions now. i'll never vote for a republican ever again in my lifetime. i'll actively work against them. fuck them.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Most laws are moral impositions.  Some are normative without being moral: driving on the right side of the road vs the left.

So who's morals are to be considered?  Only a specific brand of Christian morals?

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

6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

 


Thanks for reminding me why I don’t come here any more.

 

 

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

BUT MUH BABIES!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cool I guess. I’m glad you’re more worried about people being mean on the internet than women’s rights being taken away. Bodily autonomy? Who cares. People are mean on the internet. Thanks for focusing on the important things

Buzzrock was really upset about vaccine mandates but is fine with criminalizing abortion.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

You're just rightfully upset and lashing out at the wrong people.

I can't help you.  You woke up ready to be mad at the Dems for something the GOP/unelected SCOTUS did.  A lot of y'all wake up every day ready to be mad at the party trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit while the far right keeps lighting the kitchen on fire. 

Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected?  I don't really understand that critique.  Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So who's morals are to be considered?  Only Christian?

No, but I am a Christian for full disclosure.

Don't think everyone needs the same morals to having a functioning society and don't even think that 50%+ imposing unwanted policy creates a good society.

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

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Were the judges that decided Roe v Wade elected?  I don't really understand that critique.  Especially since now the abortion issue is solely in the hands of elected officials in each state.

Elected officials are definitely who I want telling my partner and I whether or not we can have a child since we are now going to outlaw IVF. Totes cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Loving prevents legislatures from making certain policy decisions on interracial marriage.

You down with overturning Loving?

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

I'm in an interacial marriage, so that depends on the mood at the time.  But no, Loving was correctly decided with an abundance of support.

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

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

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

How do you expect them to legislate this with the filibuster?  Dems had one brief filibuster proof majority and were kinda focused on saving us from a giant recession and then the ACA.  And then Ted Kennedy died. 

No one foresaw this in that brief 2009-2010 window when there was time to codify it into law with a Democratic House and 60-vote Senate - everything was still semi-normal.  Then the House was lost, then the Senate was lost and then a guy who lost the popular vote got to appoint 3 judges because Mitch McConnell blew up the Senate. 

You expected them to...idk, see a dozen years into the future?  Maybe they would have also seen that Trump was going to be elected and tried to stop it with their all-knowing minds.  They aren't Doctor Strange.

I kind of don't give a shit about the nuts and bolts of abortion legislation. There is a bigger picture than finding people on the right side of an issue and excoriating them for being incompetent. For one, the anti-liberty/women are chattel side of the issue is the real fucking problem in this equation.

Since the Roe decision, Congress has not tackled the abortion issue for fear of losing votes. With abortion legal, they took the politicians' way out and let it all hang on the court. I'm not sure abortion was even a partisan issue way back then. It didn't fit either party's identity until Ronald Reagan married Jerry Falwell.

Ideally, instead of relying on a court decision to determine the law, persons for abortion rights would have passed legislation making it law.

Again, the chess match isn't really important right now. The looming theocracy pounding pregnant women, homosexuals, transexuals, persons of color, and persons whom have moved here is what has me sick today.  Okay, the Dems aren't working out? Change the Dems. Vote in state elections to correct gerrymandering. Fill the streets. Have a general strike.

Shit's going down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Keef said:

There was no urgency until McConnell broke the game when Scalia died.  

Even then the Supreme Court was viewed as the most stable institution that respected things like precedent not full of shitty radicals. Scalia was a piece of shit but he knew and respected the law and back then Thomas was still asleep. Alito wrote the majority opinion as cover for Kav Barret and Gorsuch

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

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

Thomas' method of judicial interpretation is untenable.  Maybe it could be argued that he and Sotomayor help to balance the court with a little bit of nonsense each way  to at least challenge 8-1 decisions, but I'd prefer a court ranging between Breyer and Scalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Your marriage is safe bc Justice Thomas won’t vote to overturn that precedent (even though it’s based on a constitutional right he doesn’t believe exists). 

He could easily vote to overturn it, while clarifying that all marriages that were legal at the time of the ceremony are still legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The roadmap for future action by our religious clerics:

1A0F76DA-5064-44CB-B9E4-D04E8E3DA71F.thumb.jpeg.d329e74469bd800eafe15533c428ff12.jpeg

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

There's the rub, coming to a SCOTUS near you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

He could easily vote to overturn it, while clarifying that all marriages that were legal at the time of the ceremony are still legal.

Nahh -  Clarence seems like one of those self-loathing types, a real-life Clayton Bigsby of sorts ...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm legitimately curious how many charities are opening today that will fundraise and pay for people in red states to travel to regular states for this type of medical care. I'm sure there are plenty and that might restore a tiny bit of hope for humanity for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't have time to look back, but wasn't Obergefell grounded in equal protection and not substantive due process? If marriage is legal and comes with benefits, you can't deny a couple those benefits because of their gender. I'm sure Thomas knows that but nothing matters anymore so say what you want fuckface.

Both.

And fake washpark isn't wrong.  Landmark substantive due process cases are often overturned - at least compared to the low chance any case gets overturned.  It's often the avenue bad judges can use to enact policy preferences. Minimum wages laws used to be illegal due to a SDP case.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No, but I am a Christian for full disclosure.

Don't think everyone needs the same morals to having a functioning society and don't even think that 50%+ imposing unwanted policy creates a good society.

Good, so you are pro-choice and think abortion should be legal but just disagreed with how Roe was adjudicated?  You'd be fine with abortion rights under the 1st Amendment, right?

Because otherwise you're infringing on the moral rights of over 80% of Jews, and over half the Muslims and Christians in the US.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Elected officials are definitely who I want telling my partner and I whether or not we can have a child since we are now going to outlaw IVF. Totes cool

So I've been thinking about this because I know somebody who is staunchly pro-life (It becomes a protected life at conception) but has also gone through IVF multiple times- ultimately successful after many failures. 

While I don't think that it's neccessarily contradictory to be both Pro-Life and Pro IVF, it does get sticky doesn't it?  If you agree, as this person does, that an embryo is a person, doesn't that have serious implications to the process of IVF, and the ethics a procedure in which embryos are often discarded? To put it anonter way, If you believe that an embryo is a person, wouldn't you have to either have to restrict IVF, or somehow draw a distinction between "a person"  in a petri dish and one in a womb?

Edited by TexasHooch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Good, so you are pro-choice and think abortion should be legal but just disagreed with how Roe was adjudicated?  You'd be fine with abortion rights under the 1st Amendment, right?

I think there is some constitutional restriction on abortion and some constitutional allowance on abortion.  I wish I had a more precise answer to this, but I don't know and often go back and forth (over years, not just sittingnhere now) attempting to create a brightline response.

Roe was bad, but not 1A either.  SDP is the appropriate vehicle.  I don't think there's a fundamental right to an abortion wholesale, but there's a fundamental right to some degree of bodily autonomy at an early enough stage in the pregnancy.  I think there’s a fundamental right for a fetus at some stage to not be terminated as well.  Both have some degree of protection.   And lawmakers have some room in the middle to work.  I don't exactly trust legislatures to nail it perfectly, but I'd rather see them try and fail individually in court than SCOTUS to come hot out of the gates with universal standards.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...