DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings

I'm not even going to justify this with a real response, but if you need a few bucks to buy a clue, I'll be happy to send it to you.

Both of those kids will be hardcore progressives after that trauma. Their parents should be jailed for letting a monster grab them.

LMFAO, they have no clue what they are saying from the top to the bottom. Constantly proving how dumb they are is in their DNA.

ANTIFA is just an idea, not a real thing, right? Ideas don't burn things, right?

75% chance that if anything kicks off, your white supremacist friends on the right started it. FACTS.

Looks like Rudy found ANTIFA.



The guy got arrested for this. smh. Meanwhile, another Stormtrooper GOPer cop punches a female activist like crazy and I still haven't heard about an arrest.

I could not agree more! Let's do this.

I don't hang out with "white supremacists" and I don't think you meant them when you said Biden kept you from burning down the country.

If you are in the GOPer party, you do. Rather you are physically in their presence or not.

BUT I won't dodge your point. The left absolutely has a violent streak when they suffer the injustices of fascism from a small minority of swine.

You want to know the secret to convincing someone you aren't a joke during a debate... stop insulting everyone and calling them names. Seriously, you might think you are a good guy but the rage schtick isn't going to move a needle in your favor.

Trump raged and got elected president.

Do you know how to keep me from saying things you don't like to you? Don't address me or use my name in your posts. That's probably the ONLY way for you.

The gop cop was charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct

For that Mike Tyson-like assault? This kid going to have to fight the court and the MAGA HATE MACHINE for life.

If you're for non-government intervention relating to guns, privacy, freedoms, all republicans should be for abortions and a woman's right to choose.

Anything other than this is hypocritical. It's a super weird hill to die on. I mean, who in the hell is the government, you, or another person to try and enforce what somebody else does with their body. You don't know them or what their circumstances are.

If the person is a responsible adult then that's up to them to make the decision that's best for their life. Why are some people trying to push their views on complete strangers? That is a problem! Why do they even care what another person is doing!?

Probably not, but then again, he is the one talking about wanting an asteroid smashing in to the earth to destroy mankind.

Irrational talk sometimes leads to irrational behavior.

Ahh...the black victim. How about just being the victim? Had it been the other way around, being the white victim rings hollow.

So does this.

By John Solomon
Updated: June 25, 2022 - 6:52am
Article
Dig In
Two months into his presidency, as he did often on the campaign trial, President Joe Biden asked America to embrace the legitimacy of government.

“Put trust and faith in our government to fulfill its most important function, which is protecting the American people,” the 46th president implored his country in a March 2021 speech on the anniversary of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

On Friday, after being stung by abortion and gun rights rulings by the Supreme Court that he disagreed with, the president changed his tune and launched a verbal assault on America’s judicial branch of government and its iconic marbled court of nine justices.

The president took a blowtorch to the Supreme Court in language clearly designed to undermine its legitimacy. He accused the justices of waging a “deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law" and decried their “extreme and dangerous path", as he insisted the nation’s highest court had made the “United States an outlier among developed nations” by reversing the half-century-old Roe v. Wade decision.

A day earlier, he slammed the court’s verdict that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms extended to carrying in public, calling that decision “unconstitutional.”

In so doing, Biden trampled his own promise to embrace government and the rule of law. He also veered from the civility most presidents and senior political leaders have shown the court, even when it ruled against their wishes.

Barack Obama, for instance, didn’t like the famed Heller gun ruling in 2008 that overturned DC’s restrictive handgun laws, but issued a statement that suggested good people could find common ground in it.

“I will uphold the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen,” Obama said. “I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws.”

George W. Bush showed the same deference when the justices rejected his arguments that Guantanamo Bay terrorist prisoners didn’t deserve full rights in the courts. “We’ll abide by the court’s decision,” Bush said. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.”

Likewise, Al Gore upheld the legitimacy of the legal system after losing the 2000 election in an epic Supreme Court ruling: ““I accept the finality of the outcome … And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession,” the then-vice president said.

Biden’s angry strike at the court’s legitimacy drew a rebuke from many corridors, including from a famed liberal law professor who voted for him.

“I am concerned about that,” Harvard University law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told "Just the News, Not Noise" television program Friday night when asked about Biden’s reaction.

Dershowitz said Democrats have a legitimate gripe that Republicans blocked a Democrat nominee to the Supreme Court in the 2016 election year but approved their own nominee in 2020, but said that did not warrant assaulting the legitimacy of a court that for two-plus centuries has kept law and order in the country while disappointing both parties over its history.

"The Supreme Court itself is a legitimate institution. And we should not undercut it,” he said. “It's done a lot of good for civil liberties, for human rights, for civil rights. It's also done some bad like any other institutions in government. It has a mixed record. And we should try to work within the institution of the Supreme Court.”

Adding to many concerns, prior presidents who showed deference to justices didn’t have the backdrop of Biden’s last year, in which a deranged assassin plotted to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh while Democrats legitimately considered packing the court just to change its ideological makeup.

“I think the worst thing we could do is try to pack the court,” Dershowitz said.

Biden’s anti-court rhetoric was shared across the Democratic spectrum, a display worrisome to those who don’t believe a legal loss should be used to undermine an entire court system.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a party elder, called on Americans to ignore the court’s authority. “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them,” she said, adding a twist of race to her argument. “Women will be in control of their bodies. And if they think Black women are intimidated or afraid, they got another thought coming."

Young firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D- N.Y., protested outside the court by repeatedly chanting the justices were “illegitimate” while urging Americans to take to the streets.

Such attacks carried to the media, where Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman penned an article declaring the abortion ruling was “suicidal for the Supreme Court.”

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said political leaders have a responsibility to cool tempers and emotions in America's tinder-dry political environment.

"I've been concerned about violence for a long time," he told Just the News on Friday.

"We've got America very divided, deeply divided from a political ideology standpoint. And this division is starting to boil over, and it has been for a long time. There are people on the left and people on the right, who [are] just getting more aggressive in their criticism of public officials, whether they be members of Congress or Supreme Court justices. So, you know, it's certainly a concern. I think that we need to certainly instill a lot of security around Washington DC right now. And hopefully, this will cool down, but the temperature is very high."



https://justthenews.com/government/...-biden-undermines-supreme-court-ways-his

One of the key comments in the above article.


This clearly isn't happening and IMO is borderline on treason. Fanning the flames of anarchy is a very ugly look

Hope your less grumpy today.

Now lets see. Where should I start?

It may still be their right in some states. Some states it won't be, and others it will be available but with restrictions. Now as far as my ideas and the Tea Party.... You do know the Tea Party came alone in 2009. I have been speaking against abortion since 1973. I have never been shy about it. Never kept quiet about it IMO The battle is not over in Ohio yet for me as I still think we need a change in Ohio's new laws on abortion. As far as I can tell there is no exception for rape, or incest, and I believe there should be. BTW How can I be a good or bad GOPer when im not even a GOPer lol

According to the law the Supreme Court says that the extreme Court in 1973 didn't have the right to make abortion legal in all 50 States.



Yet you supported mask wearing (and so did I) You never utter a thing about rights when it comes to these things.
But where was the outrage when you can't drive 90 in a 35 MPH zone.... it's your body how dare they tell you what to due with it.
Wanna use all the crack, herion, PCP, peyote, acid, Oxy, or one of many other drugs. Sorry no can do the government tells you you can't do what you want with your own body.
Wanna drink and drive.... nope
Wanna smoke outside in some states.... nope
Wanna smoke in your own house in some places... nope
Wanna run a stop sign, or a red light.... no can do legally.
Wanna walk around naked in public..... once again something you can't do with your own body.
Wanna pay a woman for sex... hey it's her body.

That list can go on and on, and on. Yet I hear crickets from you buddy.


and never once in my life have I said they were.


Can you at least sing that to me in a Johnny Paycheck voice.... Take this BS and shove it, I ain't working here no more LOL

Be careful shoveling that BS now we are not getting any younger.

I don't even need to cover this with you today. Just found out Team red is going to go after social security and disability for y'all too. Smh. I figure you will be out on the line too when that happens. Who the hell even thinks these hateful ass things up anyway? Jesus these people are corrupt.

Because having sex in a guy's parents basement isn't romantic? /ba da dum /rimshot

Sorry, had push the stereotype comedy.

Noem defends no exception for rape, incest in South Dakota trigger law

https://www.yahoo.com/news/noem-defends-no-exception-rape-161637081.html

the people who support no exceptions for rape or incest are straight up monsters. this isn't about protecting life whatsoever. it has always been about control. a dead body literally has more autonomy than a living woman.

and the same people who support anti-abortion legislation don't want to expand WIC, SNAP, or any other programs that help women in poverty actually care for these babies. they look at babies as nothing more than a commodity for the futures market. freaking disgusting.

We are gathering up our canes, walkers, and rascal scooters for a fight, and we will bring are dirty diapers to throw

I wouldn't say they are monsters, not say it is about control over women.

That said, I agree there should be exceptions in special cases.

In the scheme of things, I don't think there are all that many pregnancies that are the result of incest or rape, but even a few is too many. I can agree that in those cases abortion is a viable ending. Obviously, anything that would harm the mother in the childbirth process and maybe even if it is determined the fetus isn't developing normally and is bound to be brought to term suffering severe handicaps. Thalidomide babies come to mind.

Nope. Monsters. Call it like it is.

Rape babies must be born. I mean it’s life. The mother should just smile at her ‘blessing’ and raise it and shut her mouth like a good woman.

The GOP and it’s voters are monsters.

LOL...to add, I was thinking there might not be enough liberal males who have sex with women.

Come on, just a joke. As the Cableman would say, "That's funny, I don't care who you are"

I did just fine in college. Liberal college girls are beautiful and fun. They love college educated boys too.
You all had to settle for the 20 year old Waffle House waitresses with her two pack a day habits and two kids at home from two different daddies. But hey she goes to church and votes GOP!!

No that is fine, you do you, but understand people that just raging and talking about burning stuff down and acting like spoiled petulant children do not change minds. You talk about nazis and fascism enough, but let's be honest, your behaviour is every bit as bad. Marxism is the other side of the fascist coin.

It's kinda funny your only argument is "but Trump!"

Supreme Court rules school district cannot prohibit high school football coach's prayers on field

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/poli...-school-supreme-court-kennedy/index.html

this is one case where i never thought in my life would be an actual case. everybody who's ever played football - or any sport - knows this is a common theme. even people who aren't religious get with the team and pray, just simply for comradery and respect. no one i know was ever forced to be in the prayer. you could just stand there and bow your head.

this was one of the dumbest cases to even come up to the SC.

It was you yourself who not so long ago plainly stated that you had no intention to have a discussion with me. Something about how you didn't respect me and droning on in some diatribe rant. So now you whine that's it's me not willing to have discussion with you. That's rich.

I’m going to lay out some genuine thoughts for the anti abortion crowd and am looking for feedback not fights. Here goes.

1) If you all feel that a 17 year old girl is capable of/responsible enough to raise a child, as seen in certain people’s actual life stories posted here, then shouldn’t that same 17 year old girl, or boy, be responsible enough to be granted the right to family planning surgery? Tubal ligation/vasectomy.
Both have lifelong ramifications. And I’d certainly say raising a child has MUCH higher stakes.

2) Would you get behind funding for true family planning clinics that provided these services for anyone over 17?


Side note of modern day ‘Murika insanity. I have a 22 year old nephew that wants to get snipped and can’t get it done. He’s “too young”. He doesn’t want kids. He’s trying to do the right thing. Yet the system denies him. He can buy a gun. Drive a car. Buy alcohol. Have children!! But he can’t get snipped. The doctors told him if he had kids already they’d do it. What kind of insanity is this?!

I can't say I disagree with you when it comes to that angle of it. But then I think you may have to admit when the president that the Republican party elected claims "There are good people on both sides", when one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us!", you know promoting the white replacement theory, you have to say that he has embraced white supremacists. There are even elected GOP politicians who espouse Q Anon conspiracy theories. When you welcome such extremists with open arms you are helping promote their ideas and principals into your mainstream politics. That doesn't mean yelling the race card where it doesn't apply is any better, just far more understandable. Trump and his trumpians just made it far more believable now.

You picked an odd time to care about this using things very understated to compared to what has been used just recently. There was no call for violence. No orders to march anywhere from the president or anything close to that nature. Yet up until now? Not a peep from you. Not that I expected any less.

That is so dumb. He is an adult he can make the choice, and live with the consequences if they arise.

That was very good framing on your part, and honestly, I've avoided this thread because it really does invoke a ton of visceral anger, and when we are in that state, I don't think anything good can happen. By the way, I'm not judging anyone. I'm as guilty as anyone on that front.

To give a preamble before answering your questions, I don't feel comfortable sharing the story on this board yet, but this is an issue that has really affected me personally, and has driven a lot of my viewing standpoint. I do try hard to be as objective on issues as I can, but I'd be lying if I said that I can be completely 100% objective on this one through my own lens of experience. It's a very unique issue because it's the only one I can think of where - right or wrong - both sides view their position as protecting fundamental human rights.

Now, to answer your good questions:

1) I don't necessarily fee that a 17 year old girl is capable of/responsible enough to raise a child - on her own. I think if there is a ban put in place, then there should be every practical resource made available to those who require it. I'm talking that the birth should be covered, the health care of child and mother should be covered, formula, diapers, etc. should all be covered. Could this be taken advantage of? Yes. However, if this is that important of an issue - one viewed as protecting human rights - then we should literally put our money where our mouths are. When it comes to the procedures you mentioned, I would be supportive of that. I would be lying if I said I didn't have concerns with it, given how difficult it is to make a decision at that age with that maturity, which obviously falls very well in line with your point of
living with the permanency of one's actions. However, I think given the weighted scenario of the two, then yes, I would support it. On top of that, I would support the procedure being covered as well.

2) I guess I just answered this one already, as I look back to the question, but yes.

Thanks for the discussion.

No, but rump sure used it to turn out the vote. When people are enraged and vote based on hate and anger, being hateful and angry, or at least pretending to be, got Trump nominated and elected president in 2016. So you can't honestly say it never works.

Supreme Court rules for inmates seeking reduced prison terms

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-inmates-seeking-142638912.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for certain prison inmates to seek shorter sentences under a bipartisan 2018 federal law aimed at reducing racial disparities in prison terms for cocaine crimes.

The justices ruled 5-4 that trial judges who are asked to resentence inmates may look at a wide range of factors, including some that have nothing to do with crack cocaine offenses that had produced longer stints in prison, disproportionately for people of color.

The high court settled a disagreement among the nation's appellate courts over what judges should do in these cases.

The case before the justices involved Carlos Concepcion, who is serving a 19-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to possessing at least five grams of crack cocaine with an intent to distribute.

But the length of Concepcion's prison term really was determined by previous state court convictions that made him a career offender under federal law.

In 2019, Concepcion asked for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act that President Donald Trump signed into law a year earlier. Concepcion argued that the law made him eligible for a shorter term, but he also pointed to his earlier convictions, one of which had been thrown out and others of which were no longer considered violent crimes under intervening Supreme Court decisions.

Still, the judge refused to consider changes to his sentence.

“The District Court in this case declined to consider petitioner Carlos Concepcion’s arguments that intervening changes of law and fact supported his motion, erroneously believing that it did not have the discretion to do so,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her opinion for the court.

An unusual group of justices joined her, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.