ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Minneapolis.... Seattle.... Austin.... 14,000 arrests in 49 cities. "unrest that took place from May 26 to June 8" 2020 in 140 U.S. cities in 20 states was "the costliest civil unrest in U.S. history".

Jan 6, 2021 = no coup attempt. May 26 to June 8, 2020 was indeed.
 
Speaking of butthurt...Bet if you were a woman getting raped and forced to have the baby you'd feel a lot differently.
But the Christian Taliban loves rape and incest babies so you don't care. Sick.
So, if you found out today, that you were the product of rape and the only reason you are alive is that abortion was illegal, what would you do? I mean, according to you, you should have been aborted.
 
But the most concerning thing in any of this is Justice Thomas' concurrence. He says clearly in his separate opinion that the Court should overrule cases that give us all the right to contraception, gay marriage and sex with someone of the same sex. If you are OK with the Supreme Court saying that we don't have those rights, celebrate, because Justice Thomas actually said clearly that those rights should not exist as constitutional rights. He curiously left out Loving v. Virginia which guarantees the right to interracial marriage.

First, Thomas did not write the majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote the gay marriage decision and Gorsuch is with the majority on this case. You think Gorsuch is about to overturn a decision he recently wrote? The majority makes it clear, which you read, that this case is unique and does not impact those cases.

Second, Thomas is being intellectually honest. He questions the substantive due process approach to finding constitutional rights. He may not have included Loving, because it was also decided on the Equal Protection clause. Scholars who have read Alito’s opinion have asked the same questions. It’s a good question. Justices being candid with legal interpretation is not concerning. It’s a positive.

And, the Court not say it was changing its mind, it admitted it got it wrong and that the prior Justices were engaging in judicial activism. Which, is unconstitutional. Law creating is the job of the legislative branch.

The Court held that there is no right to an abortion found in the constitution. Most honest scholars, both liberal and conservative, admitted this well before Dobbs. One prominent liberal pro-abortion scholar admitted it in 1973 after Roe was decided. You know that, because it’s in the opinion.
 
Last edited:
images

Who would have ever thought that 10/15/20/30 years ago one day that God would use Donald Trump to help end abortion in our country. Just another example of how AWESOME that GOD is. And the fact that demoncrats are losing their pathetic little minds because Roe v Wade got overturned is just extra icing on the cake. Thank GOD for Donald Trump.
 
I voted against Trump for the policies and un Presidential behavior.
I am ate the fork up because of Jan 6th. If Obama had lied about election results, unleashed a mob on Congress, and tried to illegally overturn a free and fair election I would be ate up with him just as much as Trump.
Like I've said before...I'm ok with differences in policy. Those differences are settled by elections. Trump didn't believe in that and is dangerous as hell to our democracy.
Many of us are ate up because we can't believe that fellow Americans still believe his BS lies.
Ummmm Hillary with the help of Obama did exactly what you just said. They spied on a sitting President. SPIED ON HIM!! Used our Nations law enforcement agencies AGAINST HIM!! Far worse than whatever you think some angry UNARMED mob of people were going to do to try and unseat a President. Take your blinders off.
 
First, Thomas did not write the majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote the gay marriage decision and Gorsuch is with the majority on this case. You think Gorsuch is about to overturn a decision he recently wrote? The majority makes it clear, which you read, that this case is unique and does not impact those cases.

Second, Thomas is being intellectually honest. He questions the substantive due process approach to finding constitutional rights. He may not have included Loving, because it was also decided on the Equal Protection clause. Scholars who have read Alito’s opinion have asked the same questions. It’s a good question. Justices being candid with legal interpretation is not concerning. It’s a positive.

And, the Court not say it was changing its mind, it admitted it got it wrong and that the prior Justices were engaging in judicial activism. Which, is unconstitutional. Law creating is the job of the legislative branch.

The Court held that there is no right to an abortion found in the constitution. Most honest scholars, both liberal and conservative, admitted this well before Dobbs. One prominent liberal pro-abortion scholar admitted it in 1973 after Roe was decided. You know that, because it’s in the opinion.
If the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.

If they were actually sticking to the strict interpretation of the law, then what a woman does in private is of no concern to the federal government and that right to privacy is protected. So, if she were to seek assistance from a physician for any medical matter that is an established private right.

Since the constitution does not identify a fetus, and only provides rights to those who were born in the United States, then there is no possible way that the constitution could provide protections for it or even recognize it. States could certainly pass laws, but just like with abortion, a fetus is not mentioned in the constitution and there is no reason that the supreme court would uphold a state law that limits a citizen's constitutional right to privacy because of something that is not explicitly stated in the constitution.

In his decision Alito specifically wrote:

“The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women. ... The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes.”

If that were truly the case then he would deferred back to the defined rights established by the 14th amendment, an abortion and a fetus are not mentioned in the constitution, said this was an issue of privacy and moved on. They didn't. At this point they became activists on a side of ethics and morality which they argued was the problem with the original decision.
 
Was out working on the property this morning and scanned thru the radio stations and two things struck me.....

....news reporter (BBC I think) talking about how the Ukraine army pulled back from one of their cities. Ukraine official saying that they realized that all they were doing was defending and losing troops in a city that is a pile of rubble. ????? Thought one the main things of war is to NOT lose territory, or to GAIN it.

...PBS radio news anchor (accidentally stopped...don't listen to their drivel) practically in tears talking about the SC decision overturning Roe. He was so pathetic I started laughing.
 
Totally not racist, party.

The Dems are the most vile and evil group. They have always been the enemy of this country throughout our nation’s history. Racism has always been a vital aspect of their party and still is which is absolutely insane that they accuse others of racism. No one believes in racial superiority and race-based decisions quite like a white leftist.
 
If the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.

If they were actually sticking to the strict interpretation of the law, then what a woman does in private is of no concern to the federal government and that right to privacy is protected. So, if she were to seek assistance from a physician for any medical matter that is an established private right.

Since the constitution does not identify a fetus, and only provides rights to those who were born in the United States, then there is no possible way that the constitution could provide protections for it or even recognize it. States could certainly pass laws, but just like with abortion, a fetus is not mentioned in the constitution and there is no reason that the supreme court would uphold a state law that limits a citizen's constitutional right to privacy because of something that is not explicitly stated in the constitution.

In his decision Alito specifically wrote:

“The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women. ... The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes.”

If that were truly the case then he would deferred back to the defined rights established by the 14th amendment, an abortion and a fetus are not mentioned in the constitution, said this was an issue of privacy and moved on. They didn't. At this point they became activists on a side of ethics and morality which they argued was the problem with the original decision.
Wrong on just about every point and I don’t definitively say every point, because I had to stop reading it was so ridiculous.
 
I think the people freaking out about red flag laws need to chill. Something had to be done. If you’re concerned that they’ll start taking guns from sane people, don’t worry about it. We have a super conservative Supreme Court. If it’s unconstitutional, due to a lack of due process, it will get modified, at the very least.
 
I would not. But, I would support legislation that helped pregnant victims of rape with therapy and compensation. Delivery the baby and receive $150k. Keep the baby and receive $50k more.
The state paying a raped mother to birth the child with an additional bonus to raise the rapist’s child. The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t a fictional piece in the the conservative world. That’s an evil and twisted line of thought.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mdnerd
First, Thomas did not write the majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote the gay marriage decision and Gorsuch is with the majority on this case. You think Gorsuch is about to overturn a decision he recently wrote? The majority makes it clear, which you read, that this case is unique and does not impact those cases.

The portion of the opinion I read specifically stated these other cases were not at risk because they arrived at their conclusions in a sound manner.

All this false angst comes from a handful of people who know better feeding all the other idiot NPCs intentionally wrong talking points.

The libs heroine rbg stated on a few occasions how roe was on such shaky ground because of how it was decided. It was 100% judicial creation and it's rationale was one of the poorest in the court's long history.
 
I have a female relative who is so far left. One of the most selfish and hysterical people. Loves to virtue signal like crazy. Ran to social media to boast about me getting covid (and somehow I survived) and how it’s proof that the jab works 😂. Wears masks until told no. Takes selfies of after being jabbed. Posts about how trans people know who they are better than any of us ever will. Supported BLM and their destruction to get people to listen. Was devastated over RGB. Etc.

She, of course, is childless. She’s too hysterical and selfish to be a mother. But of course, yesterday was just so devastating to her.
 
If the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.

If they were actually sticking to the strict interpretation of the law, then what a woman does in private is of no concern to the federal government and that right to privacy is protected. So, if she were to seek assistance from a physician for any medical matter that is an established private right.

Since the constitution does not identify a fetus, and only provides rights to those who were born in the United States, then there is no possible way that the constitution could provide protections for it or even recognize it. States could certainly pass laws, but just like with abortion, a fetus is not mentioned in the constitution and there is no reason that the supreme court would uphold a state law that limits a citizen's constitutional right to privacy because of something that is not explicitly stated in the constitution.

In his decision Alito specifically wrote:

“The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women. ... The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes.”

If that were truly the case then he would deferred back to the defined rights established by the 14th amendment, an abortion and a fetus are not mentioned in the constitution, said this was an issue of privacy and moved on. They didn't. At this point they became activists on a side of ethics and morality which they argued was the problem with the original decision.
Birthright citizenship


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“Birthright citizenship only belongs to those who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the moment they were born. But children of illegal aliens are not.

Since the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, neither are their children. They are, in plain fact, not citizens of the U.S. by birth. “

If I rob a bank, do my children get to keep the money?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHIO COLONEL
I have a female relative who is so far left. One of the most selfish and hysterical people. Loves to virtue signal like crazy. Ran to social media to boast about me getting covid (and somehow I survived) and how it’s proof that the jab works 😂. Wears masks until told no. Takes selfies of after being jabbed. Posts about how trans people know who they are better than any of us ever will. Supported BLM and their destruction to get people to listen. Was devastated over RGB. Etc.

She, of course, is childless. She’s too hysterical and selfish to be a mother. But of course, yesterday was just so devastating to her.
Damn Swag, I feel for you on that brother 🍺
 
The state paying a raped mother to birth the child with an additional bonus to raise the rapist’s child. The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t a fictional piece in the the conservative world. That’s an evil and twisted line of thought.

Yeah, democratic principles for governance amounts to a “handmaid’s tale.” Brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC888
The rape thing is the law in Ky. I have daughters and granddaughters. This law is sick as fu**.
I wouldn't be nearly as pissed if there were reasonable exceptions to these laws.

Don’t worry, after you impregnate your daughters and/or granddaughters, you can just drive to California to get the abortions. I can tell you’re EXTREMELY worried about incest, and it’s pretty obvious why to most.
 
Another overlooked point: why do childless liberal women have any say in this discussion? They dont know a damn thing about parenting, etc
Yep. That’s why I don’t give a single eff about her opinion on anything regarding kids. She gets stressed out at the presence of them. She struggles with even handling pets.

They can’t even understand that half of women don’t even agree with them. It really does stem from selfishness. Tell me what’s more selfish than deciding to snuff out someone’s life because it may inconvenience you? Is there a more privileged group than someone who is already alive deciding an innocent baby doesn’t deserve to live.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT