--> Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

Some color on the "felony miscarriage" angle:  the US averages 15,000 homicides every year.  The US averages over 500,000 miscarriages every year.  There is absolutely no way -- LONG TERM -- this kind of draconian law will hold up. 

Is it reprehensible that a cadre of shitbags are trying to make it happen?  Yes, it's beyond reprehensible.  It still won't last.

An abortion ban in many (if not most) states will last.  Welcome to Gilead.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

You might want sit this out.

Why? I didn’t make the “joke”. 
 

I knew about the policy when it was enacted. It’s needed for like 2 posters.  I found the crying in this instance funny and sad. I’m sure he’ll get reported and take his vacation and you’ll have one less poster to challenge your ideas for a few days. Big win. 
 

eta: also lol @Felix  9 negs but not any time to reply. Sorry for whatever I did to your girl, bud. 

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

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Why? I didn’t make the “joke”. 
 

I knew about the policy when it was enacted. It’s needed for like 2 posters.  I found the crying in this instance funny and sad. I’m sure he’ll get reported and take his vacation and you’ll have one less poster to challenge your ideas for a few days. Big win. 

 

B0E83EC9-AFD4-4D05-AE42-1FE1909EBC3F.gif

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

50 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Okay, neat little intellectual exercise here.  Let's apply Alito's reasoning -- "the concept of X was unknown at the time" of certain legislative or constitutional action, and therefore, applying the legislation or constitution to that concept is "indefensible."

"All men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

At the time of each of these documents -- 1776 and 1789 -- "men" only included white males....same with "People," in terms of those who could actually vote and take the action spoken of (ordain and establish).  Therefore, any application of the Constitution or the principles of the Declaration of Independence to anyone but white males is, by Alito's reasoning, "indefensible."

OR, an alternative approach....we have progressed and realized that women and non-white males are "men" and "people" too, and have all of the relevant rights.

Naah, let's go with Alito's intellectually fallacious "modality of Constitutional interpretation," which would literally freeze society in the era of powdered wigs and rampant dysentery. 

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

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


Taking away the black vote would be a huge help to R’s in the south. Paxton would support this 

With Abbott close behind..."Hey, it's what the people want!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this for real?

Why do Dems insist on bickering among themselves and imposing never-ending purity tests?  I fully expect this to devolve into another "Defund the Police"  debacle that will allow the GQP to bludgeon the reproductive rights movement into oblivion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

With Abbott close behind..."Hey, it's what the people want!"

 


they wouldn’t take away 100% of the black vote, every R has one black friend that should be able to vote !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


they wouldn’t take away 100% of the black vote, every R has one black friend that should be able to vote !

The vast majority of "conservatives" black friend is Candace Owens because they follow her on Facebook.

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

The vast majority of "conservatives" black friend is Candace Owens because they follow her on Facebook.


1. the random black kid that went to their elementary for one year

2. the black kid on their hs sports team 

3. the black clubhouse attendant at their country club

4. the black waiter at their favorite restaurant 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Is this for real?

Why do Dems insist on bickering among themselves and imposing never-ending purity tests?  I fully expect this to devolve into another "Defund the Police"  debacle that will allow the GQP to bludgeon the reproductive rights movement into oblivion.  

Because they have the same fucking leadership they've had for the last three decades. Someone needs to get chuck and nancy to fuck the fuck off

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

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

So how did he come down on the 2nd Amendment, where the types of weapons that are available today were not yet conceived of back in those days?  WHy are they legal by default?  And why is he ok with ignoring the words "well regulated" in that amendment but needs to parse every other word in the document? 

Could it be that he's proof texting, just bending the words to mean what he wants them to mean and ignoring the rest, kind of like most Christian Americans do the Bible?  Nah, that couldn't be it.

bingo-tarantino.gif

It couldn't be more spot on.

The concept of firearms with a rapid rate of fire was "unknown at the time" of the passage of the 2nd Amendment, and had the founding fathers had known the 2nd Amendment would be interpreted in a way that allowed functionally every person (note -- all persons, not just white males) to own a personal firearm that constitutes greater firepower than an entire company of soldiers in the late 1700s, "it might not have gotten a single vote."

The reasoning is super-easy to apply, logically.  But Alito does not and will not.  He does it only selectively, as a proof-texter.  Because Alito is a piece of dick.  He's Scalia without the intellect, humanity, or decency (and yes, that evaluation is every bit as scathing as it sounds).

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can't deviate from the drafter's intent, any analysis of any 14th amendment equal protection claim regarding race should involve breaking out some calipers and checking people's blood to really determine their race. Because they had weird fucking ideas about race in the 1800s that we know are stupid now. But you'll never see Alito go that far, because it'd be so obviously stupid. His entire concept of the law is just that when he was a kid his mom stayed at home and he got to beat up gay kids on the playground, and that's how shit should still work. There's nothing more to it than that.

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

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

bingo-tarantino.gif

It couldn't be more spot on.

The concept of firearms with a rapid rate of fire was "unknown at the time" of the passage of the 2nd Amendment, and had the founding fathers had known the 2nd Amendment would be interpreted in a way that allowed functionally every person (note -- all persons, not just white males) to own a personal firearm that constitutes greater firepower than an entire company of soldiers in the late 1700s, "it might not have gotten a single vote."

The reasoning is super-easy to apply, logically.  But Alito does not and will not.  He does it only selectively, as a proof-texter.  Because Alito is a piece of dick.  He's Scalia without the intellect, humanity, or decency (and yes, that evaluation is every bit as scathing as it sounds).

spacer.png

https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/

Patented in 1718, 73 years prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have the Kalthoff Repeater:

Designed in 1630, the Kalthoff Repeater was a flintlock rifle that could fire between 30-60 rounds per minute. It went through multiple variations, some able to fire 29 shots without reloading, similar to the standard magazine capacities of the Colt AR-15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

Or the Cookson Repeater

The Cookson Repeater was a repeating rifle designed in the late 17th century. It used a rotating drum magazine and had a fourteen shot capacity. The gun could fire all fourteen shots without reloading, a feat which was only surpassed by the Kalthoff Repeater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I remember George Washington crossing the Delware while under fire from British Puckle guns.  Only a handful were ever made and I doubt any of the founders ever heard of it.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I remember George Washington crossing the Delware while under fire from British Puckle guns.

Don’t forget about all of the school shootings with the Kalthoff repeater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

spacer.png

https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/

Patented in 1718, 73 years prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have the Kalthoff Repeater:

Designed in 1630, the Kalthoff Repeater was a flintlock rifle that could fire between 30-60 rounds per minute. It went through multiple variations, some able to fire 29 shots without reloading, similar to the standard magazine capacities of the Colt AR-15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

Or the Cookson Repeater

The Cookson Repeater was a repeating rifle designed in the late 17th century. It used a rotating drum magazine and had a fourteen shot capacity. The gun could fire all fourteen shots without reloading, a feat which was only surpassed by the Kalthoff Repeater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater

Fair enough; repeating firearms did technically exist.  That said, they were quite rare, quite unreliable, and super-expensive.  So, since we're talking about broad-based civilian ownership of firearms, how about we add the adjectives "reliable, functional, and affordable by the average citizen" to my description, and we're right back where we started - that concept didn't exist.  And of course, we've never gotten past the foundational problems that "men" and "people" functionally didn't include anyone but white males in the late 1700s, so we're back to the problem of the Founding Fathers not conceiving of anyone other than a white male being able to carry a firearm.

Alito-style "originalism" remains indefensible claptrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Because they have the same fucking leadership they've had for the last three decades. Someone needs to get chuck and nancy to fuck the fuck off

Went to a comedy show last night where the comedian suggested that maybe Feinstein could go on a hunger strike for abortion rights. Due to her dementia, she wouldn't even know she's on a hunger strike. Win win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Went to a comedy show last night where the comedian suggested that maybe Feinstein could go on a hunger strike for abortion rights. Due to her dementia, she wouldn't even know she's on a hunger strike. Win win!

Sounds hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...