DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings

lol... suddenly it's called an insurrection.

High school football coach scores big win at Supreme Court over post-game prayer
The court ruled that a school district violated coach Joe Kennedy's First Amendment rights


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hi...s-big-win-supreme-court-post-game-prayer

TOUCHDOWN!!!

Thanks for the response.

If I had real money I’d start a Vasectomymobile service. I’d convert busses to have vasectomy clinics in them. It’s a 20 minute outpatient office visit. No reason that office can’t be on a bus. Go from city to city, focusing on the parts of town that are underserved/underinsured. Bring in local urologists to either volunteer their time or reduce their cost. Anyone 18 or older that wants one can get one. Walk-in’s welcome.

Good, then you and the Supreme Court justices won’t be bothered at all when all the Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, attending our public schools pray to their god during public school hours, on public school property.

Elective hysterectomy is legal in all 50 states.

At what age will doctors provide it? Under what circumstances?
Vasectomies are elective and legal in every state. But as stated, my 22 year old nephew can’t get a doctor to do it for the reasons I stated. So legality is only a piece of the puzzle.

To add, a hysterectomy is far more complicated than a tubal ligation. It also has other much more significant ramifications. If an 18 year old gets a hysterectomy she’ll go through menopause immediately without taking hormone therapies to stave it off. This doesn’t happen with a tubal.

I stand behind my thought that all 16 year old boys should be snipped. You want to drive, get cut first. Bank a load at the sperm bank, costing less than many forms of monthly birth control, then snip.
You want it undone when you’re old enough to have a kid… fine. If the reversal doesn’t work then you have your fall back deposit at the bank.

This would end abortion completely except for cases of harm to the mother. How any anti abortion advocate can’t get behind this I don’t get.

My SIL was told she couldn't get her stuff done until she had tried pregnancy when she was much younger. Turns out she would have regretted getting a hysterectomy like she wanted, but, again, she should be allowed to live with her choice if she is an adult.

j/c:

Does the IRS recognize a fetus as a tax deduction?

My wife works for Untitled Healthcare. All of her self insured clients (ASO) 100% nationwide are covering abortion costs for their employees including travel and living accommodations. Get ready for your insurance premiums to rise again. Biden will be blamed by the Republican mob of course.

Be careful of people who play the victim due to circumstances they created. We see it on this very board all the time.

pregnant women should sue their state government for 9mo’s rent of their body for the unwanted fetus. Say $100k a month. Not too much to ask imo.

I stated it earlier but I’ll repeat it for those that may have missed it. Native peoples should set up clinics on reservation land inside the states that are banning abortion. Sovereign nations can fight this nonsense and the states can cry a river.

I actually think, overall, that's a fair legal asessment. I do think that these rulings more than anything highlight the inability of our legislature to actually take any initiative to get anything done. For what seems like decades now, it seems that the legislative politicians point toward the court as a double edged sword that was the primary vessel that could either preserve or destroy certain rights, when, in reality, it is the primary function of the legislature to lay the groundwork for the Court's interpretation. That requires initiative, though, beyond seeking one's own political gain.

Bro I grew up like that too, but my hometown went through the wringer over this BS with a zealot coach. Here's the story, you can find more with a few searches. This guy made his kid QB, pounded this crap in to all the kids. His kid went on to get sent to prison for child pornography. Not sure what or how his treatment as a teen played a role in that, but wow.

ACLU DECLARES VICTORY IN OHIO SCHOOL WHERE FOOTBALL COACH LED PRAYERS, READ SCRIPTURE

OCTOBER 19, 1999
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEVELAND -- An eight year history of religious indoctrination of student athletes at an Ohio public school ended today with the successful resolution of a lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio announced today.

The ACLU lawsuit, filed in June 1999 against the London City School District, said that members of the London High School Coaching staff had led prayers and passed out scriptural verse to players, breaching the First Amendment wall of separation between church and state.

For years, local citizens in London had complained that these teaching practices were inappropriate.

The settlement, which ACLU attorneys have been quietly negotiating with lawyers for the district and the coaches since early last month, prohibits future acts of religious indoctrination and establishes a system for reporting violations of the agreement to the United States District Court in Columbus.

Raymond Vasvari, Legal Director of the ACLU of Ohio, called the settlement a complete victory. "We filed suit for one reason only: to put a stop to a long history of First Amendment violations at London High School," he said. "When it became clear that the school district and the coaches were willing to abide by the law, we had achieved our purpose."

During discovery depositions held in the last two weeks, Head Coach David Daubenmire admitted to leading the football team in the Lord's Prayer after games, passing out a scriptural verse to team members, allowing ministers to lead the team in prayer, and to using Bible stories as a part of certain team meetings. Daubenmire denied having engaged in such misconduct after November 1997, although witnesses told the ACLU that such conduct persisted into the fall of 1998.

The settlement comes just one day before the case was scheduled to be heard in Federal Court. Judge James Graham had set a hearing for today, but canceled yesterday afternoon, when attorneys agreed that a settlement seemed likely. Yesterday evening, the London School Board voted unanimously to accept the terms offered by the ACLU.

"For the first time in eight years, parents can send their kids to London High School secure in the knowledge that the school district and its employees are taking the rule of law seriously," Vasvari said.

In addition, the settlement, which has now been signed by attorneys for all parties, provides a mechanism to ensure that future violations of the First Amendment will not go unpunished.

Under the agreement, for the next two years the principal of London High School must report all complaints of religious activity not only to the district superintendent, but also to the ACLU.

"This is really a remarkable settlement, because it keeps the ACLU involved in the process of monitoring compliance with the law for two full years," Vasvari said. "Once we receive a report of misconduct, we have the opportunity to investigate it, and if need be, to report it to the Federal Court, who under the agreement will supervise compliance with the law until October 2001."

Violations of the Establishment Clause could result in a citation for contempt of court. A second agreement, previously ratified by the lawyers in the case, awards the ACLU nearly $18,000 in attorney fees and court costs.

"The amount was a compromise, and somewhat less than what we feel we have earned," Vasvari added. "But we don't bring cases to make money or to cash in on other people's insurance policies -- we bring cases to protect the Constitution," he said. "We have accomplished that in London, and we're proud of that."

London High School is a public school. Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has held that public school employees may not engage students in religious activities without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In a separate case, the ACLU is still defending seven members of the London community who had criticized Coach Daubenmire's religious activities.

And in a similar ACLU case that has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, a Texas appeals court ruled earlier this year that student-led prayers before Texas public high school football games are unconstitutional. The high court has not yet indicated whether it will review that decision.

The ACLU has fought the school prayer battle on many fronts. Last April, the ACLU ran a national op-ed advertisement in The New York Times asking Americans to consider the fate of religious freedom if government is allowed to determine how students pray in school. The ACLU's school prayer op-ed ad is online at /forms/nytimesad041698.html.

And acting on behalf of families who objected to government-imposed worship in public schools, the ACLU has also successfully challenged official classroom prayer practices in Mississippi, Alabama and several other states.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases...ootball-coach-led-prayers-read-scripture

SO I'm in camp HELL NO on this one too.

This guy is a straight-up nutjob. He wrote a book about it, look at the two reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Season-Ordered-Lord-Dave-Daubenmire/dp/0977773701

And look around for his podcasts and other online crap. It was the gift that never quit giving for London.

The Extreme Court is on a roll. None of this will end well. Republicans WILL pay a steep price.

Or they should vote and ensure their state legislators codify abortion into their laws.

I mean, that seems reasonable enough.

The one thing no politician wants is failure. If sponsor something that doesn't pass their opponent will point out failure. It is much better to have an issue you can't solve to continue to tell people you are trying to solve but your opponents won't let you.

Then what's the point of even having a country? this state's rights nonsense is just another version of the EU. you guys don't want to have the same laws, same standards, same anything.

it's like we want to be a called a country without any of the responsibility that comes with being a country.

I am saying this tongue in cheek, but how about we keep the country together but redistribute the people.

Relocate all the White Supremacists in places like Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.

Relocate all the Radical Libs in Seattle, Portland, SF, NYC, Boston, etc.

Relocate all those who don't support the police in places like Chicago, Detroit, Gary, Trenton NJ, Baltimore, etc

Relocate all those w/no teeth and pointy ears and heads to West Virginny, by God.

Stoners go to Colorado and remote areas of the SW.

Religious zealots go to Alabama and similar locals.

Leave the rest of the country to us more open-minded folks so we don't have to deal w/all the hate and bias that the trash brings us on a daily basis.

because then we'd have to ignore the fact that every group you just mentioned don't even like each other.

for example, all the religious zealots in alabama? good god, that would be the next holy crusades. while i would certainly like to sit on the top of the appalachian mountains with you and watch that crap show play out, that would be destructive. catholics vs protestants vs baptist vs etc etc.

omg.

and the whites supremacist can't even agree on what "white" means.

Not just Alabama, bro. Similar locations.

Anyway, it was just a joke about how freaking divided we are. Too many extremists w/closed minds.

It reminds me of a skit George Carlin did.

You can start by reading https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America

This might give you a clue.

And all the Baker fans pack up their flags and take the train straight back to Oklahoma! 😁

Right, so it seems like you have no firm position on anything.

It’s starting to become very apparent that you have no idea what you actually want or think this country should be, you’re just another dude who knows that whatever anyone else suggest, you’re not for it.

Every thread, same outcome. Your position is to not have one. That’s cool, I guess we can limit our interactions together then.

j/c...

You'ro so radical and extreme, expecting people to stand for something.

I wouldn't support funding other than private donations.

17 or over 17? If a person is of legal age, I don't see why a person shouldn't be able to have elective surgery. I am not even sure they can't. I don't think any law prevents that. Something to research a bit. I mean, people can change their sex! Talk about life altering.

If a person is under the age of 18, probably not.

This probably won't go over, I would like to see "adulthood" changed back to 21 years old. I don't think 18 year olds are anywhere near being adult. For that matter, most 21 year olds aren't either, but you have to start somewhere.
I would give active military the right to vote at 18 years old to eliminate that argument.

Back to your 22 year old nephew. There are no laws that prevent him from having a vasectomy, but a MD isn't required to perform a vasectomy, and there shouldn't be. Really no different than some MD's wouldn't perform abortions. Even sex change operations are only done after considerable medical evaluation and process.

I'd say your nephew needs to look for another DR., but even then I think there would be a process. I don't think he is going to find a 1 stop shop where he walks in and walks out neutered 2 hours later. I think he is going to run in to the 'process" anywhere he goes.

If I am understanding correctly, for a vasectomy they can just put a clip on the tube such that it is reversible. So I dont understand why anyone would be denied if that is what they want.

That is done all the time. Trust me, libs will be calling for a vote turn out on this very issue. They have nothing else to really the troops over, and it might work.

A good ruling IMO. It provides clarity for lower court judges. Too many times a judge is bound by unclear laws and sentencing grids that don't allow the flexibility for the judge to consider all the factors in play.

So in some areas it is still legal to murder?

Imagine the backlash if those guys said... I refuse to prosecute drunk drivers because I believe they have the right to choose if they drink and drive, or I refuse to prosecute drug addicts because they have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

Imagine if a supreme court nominee lied to congress during nomination hearings. Is that perjury? Shouldnt they be removed for perjury it is the supreme court.

I know, it would be just like the two impeachments when team red would not enforce the law. Look where that got us.

That would be an interesting outcome... But next you'd have the Right wanting to take away Sovereign status. Not sure they can, but some would try.