Supreme Court says certain gun crimes are not 'crimes of violence' under federal law

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/taylor-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Virginia man who is seeking to challenge one of his convictions for using a firearm in an attempted robbery. The ruling will allow the man to attempt to reduce his sentence by 10 years.

In a 7-2 decision Tuesday, the court decided that a conviction for attempted robbery under the federal Hobbs Act does not fit the definition of a "crime of violence," and therefore does not trigger an enhanced sentence when a firearm is used.

The ruling will allow the man, Justin Taylor, and other defendants who have received between five and 10 extra years tacked onto their sentences for attempted Hobbs Act robbery to now challenge those convictions and sentences.
The Hobbs Act is a federal law that made it a crime to obstruct or affect interstate commerce "by robbery or extortion" when "induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence and fear."
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that while Taylor could be sentenced for up to 20 years for his conviction, Congress has "not authorized courts to convict and sentence him to a decade of further imprisonment."
Gorsuch appeared to criticize the separate dissents penned by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Addressing a contention made by Thomas, Gorsuch wrote in a footnote that "not even the prosecutors for whom Justice Thomas professes concern seek anything like that."
Alito, Gorsuch said, put forward an argument that the parties had "not whispered a word about."
In 2003, Taylor engaged in a conspiracy to rob a drug dealer. As a pretense, he arranged a transaction to sell marijuana to a man named Martin Sylvester. But instead of selling the drugs, Taylor and another co-conspirator attempted to steal Sylvester's money. The unnamed co-conspirator, armed with a semiautomatic pistol, shot and killed Sylvester.
Taylor was charged with attempted and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act and was convicted under a federal law which makes it a crime to use a gun in connection with any "crime of violence."
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 360 months in prison. So called "crime of violence" charges trigger increased sentences under federal law. The Supreme Court subsequently decided cases that narrowed the definition of a "crime of violence" under the law.
Taylor returned to court arguing that his charges no longer qualify and that one of his convictions must be vacated.
A district court agreed that the conspiracy charge no longer triggered the increased sentence, but it held that the attempted robbery continued to qualify.
A federal appeals court reversed -- noting that Taylor hadn't actually committed a robbery -- and vacated Taylor's sentence, remanding the case for resentencing.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html


The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life, a trend bolstered by the addition of three of former President Donald Trump's nominees.

"Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise."
Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal justices dissented.
It is a loss for critics who say the decision will amount to a further erosion of the separation between church and state. Although only one other state, Vermont, has a similar program, the court's ruling could inspire other states to pass similar programs.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said, "today's ruling puts states in a difficult position" if they choose to provide school tuition assistance programs.

"Although framed as a school-choice ruling, it's hard to see how this won't have implications for a far wider range of state benefit programs -- putting government in the awkward position of having to choose between directly funding religious activity or not providing funding at all," Vladeck said.

Writing a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court had "never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education."
Responding to Breyer's emphasis on "government neutrality," Roberts wrote that "there is nothing neutral about Maine's program."
"The state" he said, "pays for tuition for certain students at private schools -- so long as they are not religious."
"That is discrimination against religion," Roberts said.
"Maine's administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any such public benefit program — including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient's religious exercise," he added.
Sotomayor, in a dissent of her own, put Tuesday's ruling in context with the court's other recent moves to expand religious liberty, while accusing the court of dismantling "the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."
The majority, she wrote, did this by "embracing arguments from prior separate writings and ignoring decades of precedent affording governments flexibility in navigating the tension between the Religion Clauses."

"As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars," Sotomayor said.
Religious conservatives and organizations praised the ruling, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which filed a brief in the case.
"This watershed Supreme Court ruling opens the door for our advocacy efforts at the state and local levels in key places like New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere," said Maury Litwack, executive director of the Orthodox Union's Teach Coalition.
Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, called the ruling "a great day for religious liberty in America."
"We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country," Shackleford said in a statement. "Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government."

so the school one is debatable, so we can get into whether or not we agree or disagree with that.

but the ruling on the gun charge makes absolutely no sense to me.

Right?

"I'm 'bout to rob this place, I don't think anyone is home, should I take a gun?"

SC: "Of course, there's no added penalty... better to be safe than sorry!"

SO he was involved in a crime where his co-conspirator used a gun to kill a man, and that is not considered violence?

In 2003, Taylor engaged in a conspiracy to rob a drug dealer. As a pretense, he arranged a transaction to sell marijuana to a man named Martin Sylvester. But instead of selling the drugs, Taylor and another co-conspirator attempted to steal Sylvester's money. The unnamed co-conspirator, armed with a semiautomatic pistol, shot and killed Sylvester.

Has anyone read the opinion or are you letting the media frame your understanding?

Here's my question... if they killed someone, how come only robbery charges are mentioned? I actually kinda understand this one more than the school one. If they committed murder/manslaughter, then charge them for that. If you can't prove that... well a gun doesn't/shouldn't really change much (other than maybe using it to persuade a jury "dude got shot and jerk#2 was the only one around with a gun"), right?

This is a great example of why these layered gun laws are stupid. The robbery (actual crime) is a given, but we're hung up on whether or not a gun was/was not involved.

I think the real question was "does the Hobbs Act Apply to the circumstances of this case." The SC said no. I tend to agree. There is nothing about breaking a federal law.

Held: Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under §924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires
proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use
force. Pp. 3–13.
(a) The Court applies a “categorical approach” to determine whether
a federal felony may serve as a predicate for a conviction and sentence
under the elements clause, which poses the question whether the federal felony in question “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force.” §924(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The
relevant inquiry is not how any particular defendant may commit the
crime but whether the federal felony at issue always requires the government to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of its
case—the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. This Court
has long understood similarly worded statutes to demand similarly
categorical inquiries. See, e.g., Borden v. United States, 593 U. S. ___,
___.
An attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements
clause. To secure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the
government must prove that the defendant intended to complete the
offense and that the defendant completed a “substantial step” toward
that end. See, e.g., United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U. S. 102, 107.
An intention is just that, no more. And whatever a substantial step
requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against
another person or his property—even if the facts would allow the government to do so in many cases. As the Model Penal Code explains
with respect to the Hobbs Act’s common-law robbery analogue, “there
will be cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted robbery,
where the actor does not actually harm anyone or even threaten
harm.” ALI, Model Penal Code §222.1, p. 114. But no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used,
attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Pp. 3–6.
(b) The government’s countervailing arguments fail. Pp. 6–13.
(1) The government first argues that the elements clause encompasses not only any offense that qualifies as a “crime of violence” but
also any attempt to commit such a crime. But the elements clause only
asks whether the defendant did commit a crime of violence as defined
by the statute. Pp. 6–7.
(2) The government next argues that the “substantial step” element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery categorically requires it to prove



Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
Syllabus
that a defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical
force. But while many who commit the crime of attempted Hobbs Act
robbery do use, attempt to use, or threaten to use force, the government’s problem is that no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires the government to prove such facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government maintains that anyone who takes a substantial step
toward completing Hobbs Act robbery always or categorically poses a
“threatened use” of force because the word “threat” can be used to
speak of an abstract risk. The government submits that the elements
clause uses the term to require only an objective, if uncommunicated,
threat to community peace and order. But when Congress uses the
word “threat” in such an abstract and predictive (rather than communicative) sense, it usually makes its point plain. The textual clues in
the statute point in the opposite direction of the government’s reading.
Moreover, the government’s view of the elements clause would have it
effectively replicate the work formerly performed by the residual
clause. Under usual rules of statutory interpretation, the Court does
not lightly assume Congress adopts two separate clauses in the same
law to perform the same work. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection
Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 839, n. 14. Pp. 7–10.
(3) The government’s final theory accepts that a conviction under
the elements clause requires a communicated threat of force and contends that most attempted Hobbs Act robbery prosecutions involve exactly that. But whatever this argument proves, the theory cannot be
squared with the statute’s terms. Congress in the elements clause did
not mandate an empirical inquiry into how crimes are usually committed, let alone impose a burden on the defendant to present proof about
the government’s own prosecutorial habits. Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically require proof of the elements § 924(c)(3)(A)
demands. That ends the inquiry, and nothing in Gonzales v. DuenasAlvarez, 549 U. S. 183, suggests otherwise. Pp. 10–13.
979 F. 3d 203, affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ.,
joined. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf

you mean this one?

again, doesn't make any sense.

The syllabus is a good place to start but it is not considered as part of the actual ruling, it merely explains it (though it should be in an unbiased way, unlike any of the "news" media).

The majority opinion is the actual ruling and is the binding part. I wanted to read this one this morning when it came out but someone asked me a database question and my day went out the window. I might try to read it tonight, hope to have it done by the weekend if I not.

That's kind of where I'm at. The Hobbs Act was intended to cover racketeering, commerce, unions, etc. I don't see how it ever get used in a case of robbing a drug dealer.

I don't think tax dollars should go to religious schools. Unless all religions are treated equally, as well as non-religious or anti-religious schools get the same. AND I THINK THIS, because it's fun to watch Trumpian heads explode.

PUH-lease.

Which is a great legal argument.

Wow, I guess I should have used purple for those who don't get a little truth in a whole lot of mocking. Legitimate religious schools open to public enrollment should receive funds, but not the privatized schools or schools whose religious philosophy is in the ilk of those TEXAS GOPer ChRiStIaNs and their hate messages. That better for you OR did your head explode? smh.

The deal is people who's kids don't go to public schools pay the same taxes as parents who's kids do. I suppose if there was some accredited school of Satan, then they could apply as well.

BOOM! I guess you pwned me.

At least yer not bitter or anything

Wow, the struggle to understand is real for you, huh?

Isn't that what they ruled? That the state of Maine can't treat one school differently than another? Basically said they have to include all schools in the vocher program or no schools...

No, I don't think that is correct. I think it diminishes the separation of church and state intentionally because the Christian right and Christian Right SCOTUS Judges want to mainstream Christianity again. Christian American numbers have been on a steady decline for decades, IMO rightfully so. Giving them money to indoctrinate kids into Christianity in K-12 is the same as them complaining about libs politically indoctrinating at colleges IMO. I just posted this in the Republicans thread, should have put it here.

Sotomayor accuses conservatives of ‘dismantling’ church-state separation

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s most outspoken liberal, accused the court’s six-member conservative majority of eroding the barrier between church and state on Tuesday by striking down a Maine policy that barred religious schools from receiving taxpayer-funded tuition aid.

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Sotomayor wrote, dissenting from the 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines.

“In just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine,” she added, “shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

Maine law gives school-age children the right to free public education. But because many rural districts lack a public high school, a workaround was devised that allows students to attend nearby qualifying private schools with public assistance.

The Maine law at issue in the case had deemed schools with religious instruction ineligible for the program.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with a group of Maine parents who sued over the law, with the conservative justices ruling that the challengers’ constitutional religious protections were violated.

“Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

Sotomayor also joined in part a separate dissent written by fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, whose opinion was joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal member.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-of-dismantling-church-state-separation/


She nailed how I feel about religious schools getting federal money to indoctrinate people.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Just verifying my statement about Christian numbers being on the decline.

Damn millennials messing things up again


BTW you can be a Christians without going to a Church Service every week.

I know and that's all good. Just think it's wrong to fund the propagation of religion with tax dollars. Thoughts and Prayers can do that.

I would add that the majority of church goers tend to begin later in life. I know I wasn't church goer in my 20's.

As far as the vouchers, Ballpeen has a point about taxes. If these vouchers come from tax dollars, then using them for religious private schools is no different than non-religious private schools (charter schools).

Which raises the question, why are any private schools getting government funding?
An argument can easily be made that if you are a private school then you are a private school.

I am sure it has to do with ensuring availability to lower income families.

I almost agree with you. I think it's fine if tax dollars go to religious schools, but then peoples' heads can't explode when a student refuses to pray at morning/meals/whatever... or wants to opt out of religion classes.

Two more opinion days this week, Thursday and Friday. I think there are 13 cases left from this session.

Having a quick read of the Maine case and I see this:



By denying a broadly available benefit to be used for a religious education the state is actually endorsing the idea that religious observers must not use religious views in their own decisions.

Yes, direct testimony under oath by Republicans themselves is nothing more than opinions.

You really don't get it do you? You might want to look at the actual opinions, especially things like who joined an opinion.

Not every opinion onTuesday was a 6-3 "Republican" win.

I'd say that is a bit inflammatory and not how it would work.

Show me how you think it would work. You all want rape babies born. Even if it’s by raped children. So tell me how you think this would play out differently if Texas gets it’s way. Let me guess, the raped child would be given religious council to help her see how her rape baby is god’s will and a blessing.

There's already a thread for the rhetoric about abortion. The court has not issued an opinion in Dodd yet.

j/c...

Thread on SC rulings from today....

NYSRPA vs Bruen is in.

Off to read it.

It looks like they did more than that.

No more 2A two step.

Geez Port. I like you. Otherwise I would tell you to buzz off.

I think if you used your ample brain, you can figure out it wouldn't work like that.

I haven't seen the actual abortion laws proposed in some of these states that have trigger laws which will outlaw abortions the moment Roe vs Wade is overturned if it is overturned. I have heard that some of them do not have exclusions for rape or incest. I have also heard them say there will be "no exceptions". It may not be as cut and dry as you think it is.

Tell me then how it would work. Some of these states are wanting to deny abortion even in the case of rape. So tell me, what would the plan be? What would they tell the 11 year old pregnant rape victim why she was going to be forced to carry the baby she’s in no way capable of providing for?

Oh the sanctity of the fertilized egg must come above all!!! Except, well, you know…

j/c...

Dobbs vs Jackson

213 pages? Do they think I have nothing better to do than read these things?

WOOHOO doing my old, fat, white guy with no rhythm dance.

Gross. Really really gross.

Welcome to the world all the rape babies and unwanted children.
What a wonderful world.
Guys like GM will be dead when the rest of us are dealing with his garbage policies coming true.

This country sucks.

Now that being said *and a big raspberry to those of you who swore this day would never come* I hope the states still allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to save the mothers life and health.

They won’t and you know it.

Answer for the Alabama senator’s words I posted above.

Now you sound like my Doctors lol

Welcome to the world of over dramatic hyperbole....



Abortion is not illegal. Abortion was not taken off the table. The laws on abortion will be made at the state level, unless, I suppose, congress gets involved and sorts it out. That, of course, would mean the two sides need to stop yelling at each other and start talking, but that doesn't get airplay and fill the election coffers with that sweet sweet coinage.

and I will fight for the right to allow abortion in the cases I mentioned above just like I fought for the rights of the unborn for most of my adult life.

Mark my words, the crime rates in this country will climb dramatically in 16-18 years. Read Freakonomics.
I’ve got 13 years until retirement. Being an expat is sounding more and more appealing.

Yuck. This country… so disappointing. We’re going backwards and people are cheerleading for it. Yuck.

For me personally I don't agree with him. My niece and her husband adopted a baby (both catholic and don't believe in IVF) My daughter and her Husband can't have kids in the traditional way and my grandaughter was born using IVF, and my daughter is now preggers with a our first grandson right now also from IVF. IMO life is not possible until the fertilized eggs attaches itself to the uterine wall.

So it’s about the woman. Got it. Loud and clear.

I can't agree with old Clarence on that one, and neither would my brother and his husband if they were still alive.

Own it. This is your side. These are your peeps creating this. Own it.

Well, the country will burn this weekend and the next few weeks. Women are going to lose their minds over this. Dumbass hateful GOPer Justices.

Handmaid's tale here we come. You'd have to be mentally handicapped to vote for a GOPer IMHO. The only way they did this was by stealing SC seats. Dirty as hell.

Well I imagine that they're going to lay out a ton of precedent from a wide swath of court history if they're going against Stare Decisis.

And they thought they would win in 22, they are done for the next two decades.

Hey peen just checking in to continue our conversation.
How again will the conversation go?

j/c

Don't worry, they'll be forcing kids to have babies, they'll overturn gay marriage and be coming after the rights of everyone who isn't heterosexual now. Thomas is already eluding to it. Then many who supported the overturning of Roe vs Wade will say, "But that isn't what we meant!"

Gross. Really, really gross.

Answer, what will you tell the 11 year old rape victim? Stop dodging.

No one will force children to have babies.

Get out of the hyperbole and into real life.

This ruling did not:

1) Make abortion illegal in the US.
2) Forbid states from allowing abortion.
3) Forbid anyone to move lawfully from state to state in regards to abortion.
4) in any way keep the Federal government from enacting laws to codify abortion (likely under the interstate commerce clause) in the US.

Seriously, this got rid of a flawed opinion and restored states rights. I am sure everyone that has yelled about states rights in regards to NYSRPA ruling is yelling states rights in regard to this as well.

Yes, if you have the money to travel and provide yourself with lodging to get an abortion, you can. If you're too poor to do so, you can not.

Making abortion illegal after six weeks, which many women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage, is merely a loophole to claim you didn't ban abortions.

Now we protect the fetus but once it's born, it's free to go to school to get killed by a deranged person with an AR-15

yup, makes perfect sense to me.

So the only time someone can get an abortion is if the travel for it? Drop the emotional rhetoric.

In MD the state codified your right to one years ago. Many states have.

It seems you either didn't read the part about the six weeks or it simply doesn't fit into your agenda.

Or once again you think I am bound to answer to every leading "gotcha" point you make. I don't see why you can't understand a simple notion that you are not in control of my responses and I can address, or not address, them as I see fit.


My agenda has always been personal freedom and personal responsibility.

That's your only answer when you avoid points others make only to focus on your own. Somehow you make that their fault. I'm just pointing things out so everyone understands just exactly what it is you're doing. And it's not hidden well enough that everyone needs it explained to them.

"I'm not gonna address the points you made because I don't have to and you can't make me!" Hilarious.

j/c:

Could be an interesting night across the USA.

I am not dodging. I am just not answering your stupid questions.

Maybe you should help start some sort of Womans Benevolent Fund that would provide women without the means to go a few hundred miles to another state where abortion will be legal that helps them have their abortion. How much would that cost? The cost of a few tanks of gas and a few nights in some motel? That doesn't include the cost of the actual procedure.

As has been said, and for the record, I wouldn't be against some flexibility to allow in extreme cases as you mention. Add in the health of the woman or some select other extreme cases.

What do you say to that? LOL...nevermind.

You will do you and you will be you.

And you still have no right to demand I say anything it is you think I should say.

Take from it what you will, I could care less what you think of me. I don't cotton to people that use bully tactics to get their way.

j/c...

New corporate benefit?

I have a fund. It’s called the taxes that go to Planned Parenthood to help support women both that want and don’t want abortions but need medical care, pregnant or not. Your psychopathic side wants that shut down. Add to that there’d not be a need for such a fund if your side hadn’t stripped the rights of women away.
How about you start a fund to give good homes to the tens of thousands of kids already trapped in an overburdened foster system. No, instead you seek to add another wave of unwanted kids into the bogged down crap hole system.

Let me guess, you’re all for better systems… but continue to vote for the side that wants to cut funding and resources. Hope and prayers will fill the void I’m sure.

Stock tip…. buy shares of companies that run the private prison systems in the southern states. I’m sure they’re in the early stages of planning to build a bunch more now. They’re just 18 years away from doing brisk business.

I haven't demanded it. I've pointed out how you dodge things that don't go along with your narrative.


I don't cotton to people who label others in some lame attempt to play the victim.

I suggest that since you promote unwanted pregnancies that you adopt one of these children. But that isn't going to happen either. Instead you will support politicians that propose cutting social programs to make these children live even poorer lives. We will hear arch screaming about "people are getting paid for doing nothing" while these children's very lives depend on these programs. Then we will sit back and listen to you claim you are pro life while everything you promote proves you are only pro birth.

The population of the poor will grow faster while the crying about the cost of social programs will grow even stronger from the right. And all because of their own self inflicted policies.

You have, repeatedly with your "you didn't address this" "you didn't address that" game. You continue to deny your games, but you play them repeatedly.

And again, don't tell me what I am or not. I am not your victim, no matter how hard you try. To be your victim would imply you have somehow bested me, you have not. You just play your little games and pat yourself on the back for being so clever.

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

Sorry man....buzz off.

By the way, read the deal on Dicks sporting goods.

Just saying, abortions aren't going away.

Tis true.

Claiming someone is "a bully" is the epitome of playing the victim card no matter your denial.

So telling the truth of how you avoid things is now what is called "demanding" something in your world?

The door won't be hitting me anywhere because I'm not going anywhere. Your tantrums are useless.

Here we go again. Let me try in littler words. I said you used bully tactics. You are a bully wanna be. You seem to think you have some sort of power that just does not exist.

To be a bully you'd have to actually be effective, you are a petty little game player, one of the games you play is your bully tactics.

Now stop. Reread that. No, really, one more time, slowly so you can understand.

I seem to have quite an effect on you. I mean you reply over and over again claiming I'm a bully trying to garner sympathy and support from other posters. You presence and consistent replies indicate you aren't stating the reality of the situation. Telling me to stop isn't going to work for you wither. Speaking of not getting the message.

You do not wither me.

Is this some movie quote? You claim I have no effect on you. Yet you just can't stop. It seems you aren't being honest.

First of all, YOU are the one that can't stop. You argue with everyone. That, and your mullet, is why mom disowned you.

If it’s the futile fight you indicate it is then why is your side fighting so hard to stop them?
Why don’t you just stay the hell out of people’s personal lives? Oh, right… fertilized eggs… but only in a woman…but it’s not about controlling women.

Good for Dick’s. I’ll use them now over the closer Sportsman’s Warehouse I usually shop at for those types of needs. It’s unfortunate in a ‘free country’ that this type of nonsense even has to happen. ‘Murika.

Roe v. Wade overturned:
Washington Post columnist thanks Donald Trump, hails 'greatest pro-life president'

Conservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen said every pro-lifer should say four words today: "Thank you, Donald Trump."

Those on the side I I argue with are such whiners. And I haven't had a mullet in many years. As a redneck yourself I thought you of all people would have appreciated it when I did. And mom told me she disowned you. She keeps playing us against each other. No wonder we never got along. I still think I'd be mad at her if I were you. I mean who names their kid Curly?

That's it, thank the traitor.

I wonder how many abortions that abortion of a president has been a part of. My guess with his lecherous past is it’s more than one.

If I was Fred, he would have been one. Or I would have worn a condom.

Have all you libs jumped off the cliff today?

Sovereign first persons nations need to set up clinics on their reservation land in those states that restrict or ban abortion. Then fight like hell for their sovereignty when the states fight back.

Thank God for Trump! His SCOTUS appointees helped STOP this murderous evil on our country!

j/c...

Definitely the new corporate benefit.

I'm pro-choice and it's amazing to see all this hyperbole, propaganda, and nonsense being said and shared about this CORRECT decision when it comes to the federal gov't's role. The Court just handed politicians (and arguably the people that elect them) more power and authority on this issue. This might be a huge opportunity for Democrats.

I certainly expect the hyperbole and nonsensical comments here, but even nationally, there is deliberate prompting to cause damage.

If you don't like it GET THE HELL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For those in the back not paying attention…

Stalin banned abortion, too. Hell of a guy he was…

Bite me.

I do not get the connection here. This just seems like hyperbole.

No, the SCOTUS did.

MAGAts are evil.

Consolation prizes? BFD. Women should just cut GOPers off, we'd see how proud they are of their BS then.

So this then brings up the point about what happens when someone travels to a different state to do something that is known to be illegal in their own state.

And for everyone that wants to rush in and say that'll never be an issue. Bite me. Give it time and this is going to be the next bullcrap thing that the anti abortionists will zero in on.

It's a slippery slope - and as for the SC not being tied to political ideology. Bull crap. Trump spoke correctly when he said "He achieved this" ... and Ginni and Clarence are part of the problem from what I have seen of her texts and his trash originalist opinion.

Oh well. Precedent has been set. Give it 2 or 3 decades and the cycle will swing the other way. Meanwhile politicians on all sides will line their pockets, not give a damn about what's best for the country or the people. Hell - the USA might re-elect their traitorous #45

I have no idea why any woman would want to have casual sex with a conservative male.

This BS sure brought out the trolls. GOPer cesspool.

Yep. Political goals were met on both sides of the aisle today.

Saw a post elsewhere that read:

If it was about babies, we'd have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn't be charged a cent to give birth no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we'd have months and months of parental leave for everyone.

If it was about babies, we'd have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies we'd have free and excellent child care from newborns on. If it was about babies, we'd have iniversal pre-K and kindergarten, and guaranteed after school placements.

God's honest truth.

Why?

Broadly speaking it seems like conservative males would most likely use protection, or make sure other protective measures are met, and try to make sure a pregnancy would not occur. "Raw dogging it" doesn't seem like a risk conservative males would take on the aggregate. I don't think think liberal males would be as precautionary. But, like your post, that's just speculation.

I am not going to give my opinion on the decision, but it seems to me that those who support abortion would more careless when it comes to unprotected sex than those who don't approve of abortion.

I bet the number of guys who talked girls into having sex and then told that same girl to go have an abortion is almost countless.

You’re correct. I should have said Republican voting males. Not conservative males.
I recognize they are two different beasts. Unfortunately they pull the same lever.

Oh, yeah. That totally changes the point. Hahaha.

I've voted Republican at times. Democrat at other times. I'm pro-choice. There are things I am conservative about. Others topics where I'm quite liberal.

Your broad generalizations about people, their identity, and what box you put them in fall very, very, short of reasonable or intellectual. And that is what is very wrong with this world.

"Supreme Court Extremists"

Words matter when talking to the public and many of you blamed Trump for this type of rhetoric. This garbage should be denounced by everyone whether you agree with the decision or not. It is encouraging a response that is not good.

"We wont' let the the Supreme Court have the last word". Who does she mean by "we"?

The fascists?

The majority of Americans

Something I find strange is that so many or you guys keep saying its only men who are against abortion the women i know are split about 50/50. So why do you insist that no women support overturning Roe v wade?

That's because they are extremists. Not much better than the Taliban forcing their religion on the whole country. And they are maybe 20-25 % minority.

The fascist right IS the problem. We are ANTIFA. All 75% of us. We hate the fascism of the far right. Stop projecting or sidestepping the obvious.

ANTIFA is an idea, nothing more.

Hitler learned otherwise.

You and your love of Hitler references.

Let me know when the concentration camps and ovens start up.

It is hyperbole.

It’s not the same. That type of rhetoric is wrong and we need to be consistent at calling it out. FrankZ called out the point earlier that this ruling invalidates Roe’s decision that abortions are constitutionally protected under the right to privacy. That’s the central issue at play and was during Roe. The game has now shifted to still defining a “human being” and making the same arguments on a state by state basis that everyone is making all over this thread. It’s gotten far away from the central legal tenant at issue though.

On Friday, in his concurrent opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Thomas emphasized that SCOTUS should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. “

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents... After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” wrote Thomas.

The cases mentioned include Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that states had no right to ban contraception, Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled on same-sex sex, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that same-sex couples could legally marry.

He also alluded to the fact that there were other 'wrongly decided' cases which needed to be addressed. It seems like he's talking about such cases as 'Lawrence v. Texas', 'Plyler v. Doe', 'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius', and maybe even 'Loving v. Virginia'.

Loving vs Virginia-Inter racial marriage
Plyler v. Doe-truck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children
Lawrence vs Texas-Same sex sexual activity
'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius-Ability of congress to enact provisions of the Affordable Care Act

I actually didn’t take that part as bad. I’m assuming she meant the legislature. I didn’t take it as threatening for whatever that’s worth.

Fortunately it was a concurrence. That’s a foul on Thomas’ part getting so out of bounds on the question posed.

Correct, concurring and dissenting opinions are merely speculation and thought exercises. They are not considered binding.

And in regards to other opinions that could be overturned, first the question has to come to the court. The court does not go looking for the question. It takes a lot of work to get there.

Oh, we'll stop the alt-right before they get to do that. Real Americans will put them in their place.

I know it's your schtick and all, but the whole nazi stuff is so overplayed.

Yep. That was my point on the foul. He overreached. Are you a fellow JD?

They just made women 2nd class citizens. A few months ago they attacked trans kids. SCJ Thomas put out a call for cases to ban gay marriage, adult same-sex consensual sex, and birth control. He mentioned everything but loving v virginia because he is a black man married to a white woman. They are absolutely coming after our rights and attacking the most vulnerable. I don't give a damn what my words sound like, and neither should you. This isn't a Kumbaya moment, it's a get in the trenches moment. They are religious political zealots with no shame. They stole SCOTUS seats and attempted a coup FFS.

Goodness no, I am just someone interested in personal rights, and on occasion I read a court opinion for fun.

All I have to say is that we learned today that elections do have consequences.

We will see how much in November.

This is Reuters for crying out loud. Fair and balanced honest news.

"Corporations are people, my friend-"

Willard "Mitt" Romney, 8/11/2011

This will become a possibility if America's priorities ever shift.
But that would require money to be sent to places other than where it's going now.
I wish us all luck with that.

Oh my! This isn't a good look.


Anti-Life Democrats Chant ‘America Was Never Great’, Shout ‘Hail Satan’''
By Tom Pappert
Published 4 hours ago

https://spreely.video/v/1526097796/...istian-Woman---Let-s-Hear-It-For-Satan--

A large group of pro-abortion protesters outside the Supreme Court chanted “America was never great” while a smaller group chanted “Hell” after the high court overturned Roe v. Wade, returning abortion laws back to the states.

An elderly woman led the chant, “Two, Four, Six, Eight, America was never great” in an apparent response to 45th President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan. The elderly woman then promised in a chant, “What are we doing tomorrow? Staying in the streets!”



Meanwhile a smaller group of protesters engaged with a solitary Christian woman who warned members of the audience that they were destined for hell.

One woman shouted, “I want sex” as part of a vulgar rant. “I want to orgasm,” she added.

“Lady, no one is asking Jesus to save us,” another woman replied.



The same group later began chanting “Hell” repeatedly after one man said, “Let’s here it for hell, let’s here it for Satan.”

At the end of that chant, yet another woman shouted “Hail Satan!”



This morning the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark 5-4 decision backed by the court’s conservative majority. Chief Justice John Roberts offered a concurring opinion that would have stopped short of overturning the precedent set by Roe.

Three of the justices who formed the majority decision – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed by Trump during his administration.

CNN claimed in an article today that Trump is owed credit for the landmark Supreme Court decision, suggesting that it is the culmination of a process he set in motion on the campaign trail in 2016.

Trump, meanwhile, refused to take credit for the pro-life achievement when asked by Fox News. Instead, the 45th president told the network “God made the decision.”

https://valiantnews.com/2022/06/vid...merica-was-never-great-shout-hail-satan/

SO.

I’ve stated my stance on abortion before - which is in line with GM’s - but this is absolutely a colossal failure of the GOP. Quite honestly, I’m surprised this even happened because I had always felt they were just giving lip service to the notion and just wanted to draw the line. Reading the reports coming out now about Trump regretting the downfall of RvW because of its impact on the next election makes me think that actually was the case. They were almost surprised the court actually did what it did, despite the fact it was set up to do just that.

Anyhow, I digress.

It should be about every single one of those things that were mentioned. I am 100% for it and anyone else who is pro life but takes the “NO EnTitLemENts!!” stance is being horrifically hypocritical and obtuse on this front. It irks me like crazy.

They just one government. They are just bricks in the wall.

That's like saying all drug overdoses are the fault of everybody else but the person who overdosed
I mean hell if drugs were legal, and easy to get, and they passed out as much narcan as people wanted, then those poor, poor people wouldn't have had to go to some back ally dealer for their drugs.

Except this isn’t illegal drugs. This is MEDICAL CARE.
bUT tHE fErtiLizED egG!!! soO PrEciOus… except if it’s in a lab… then who gives a crap.

It's medical care if the mother has major problems with the pregnancy or birth. It's just done for convenience in most cases.

j/c

Can anyone anywhere point to a scintilla of evidence that the Constitution addresses abortion? If more people understood the responsibilities of the three branches of government then there would be better and different uproar about issues like abortion...aimed at the legislators that one GETS TO VOTE FOR.

The SC did not outlaw abortion yesterday...they simply DID NOT. The BS in this thread and by idiots like Warren are by people who want our country run by the whims of the day. The SC got it wrong in '73 and they corrected that wrong yesterday. The SC is not - and never should be - concerned about a citizen's opinion of what should be allowed or not...that is why we get to elect our representatives.

Abortion has always been a states' rights issue. Whether a person believes abortion should be legal is NOT the concern of the SC. This is simply not that complicated when one understands why our system of government is what it is and how it works.

You mean specifically. There are many vague constructs in the Constitution that said in general terms which cover many issues. Do you have any idea how many things have been ruled on that weren't named specifically but were found to be described by definition in the constitution? That's exactly why we have a SCOTUS. To interpret what the constitution means on a myriad of topics.

here is a synopsis of the original ruling. The original ruling about Roe was about state government overreach into a woman's life and the protection of her privacy.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision has proven to be one of the most controversial cases in the Court’s history.



Norma L. McCorvey discovered that she was pregnant in June 1969. It was to be her third child, but McCorvey wished to have an abortion. At the time, Texas law only allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. McCorvey was advised by her friends to falsely assert that she had been raped, but there was no police report to back up this claim. Instead, McCorvey attempted to have an illegal abortion, but she soon discovered that the authorities had shut down the facility.

McCorvey visited a local attorney seeking advice on what to do next. The attorney assisted McCorvey with beginning the process of putting her child up for adoption, and also referred her to Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School.

Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Yeah, but if doesn't actually mention something in the constitution by name it doesn't count, right?

And make no mistake about it, the other three cases that thomas mentioned yesterday are not on the docket at this time, but he specifically said that they need to be addressed-he fired a salvo to bring those cases up to the court and we will fix them.

These cases are not about undoing the actions described in the lawsuits-abortion, gay marriage, married couple contraception, inter racial marriage-they are about undoing your personal privacy and undoing many of the freedoms being a citizen of this country affords.

Hell, in his opinion yesterday, he mentioned the case regarding married couple contraception nearly 2 dozen times.

From the Washington Post

Audrey Sandusky, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association’s senior policy and communications director, told The Washington Post that the opinion shows there is an ‘’appetite among at least some on the Court to dismantle a whole landscape of rights, including the right to access contraception and the fundamental right to privacy.’’

Pointing to instances in which states have deemed certain contraceptive methods as abortifacients, or substances that can induce abortions, Sandusky said the decision will embolden more of those kinds of state policies.

So if having a kid is inconvenient we should definitely force those women to have that child. Teach her a lesson right? I mean nothing like being raised by a parent that didn’t want you. That didn’t have space, time, energy, or money for you. That’ll make for a great outcome.
Awesome.

Yeah...but the woman CHOSE to have unprotected sex...you talk like some white supremacist impregnated her through osmosis. SHE MADE THE DECISION THAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING.

You just described when an issue becomes one for the states to rule on...like abortion is now. RvW was created by the SC out of thin air with no judicial reasoning other than what the justices "wanted". That's simply not their job or responsibility.

This quote from Magoo yesterday sums up the disaster that the socialists want - legislation from the bench:

"With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country," Biden said during a speech at the White House.

A 40+ year politician that pretends to not know how our system of government actually works. That is flat out irresponsible of the POTUS to think such a thing...let alone say it to the world. That comment is offensive to anyone with a lick of intelligence and/or education.

And this is what the right wing and self described centrist refuse to acknowledge: Thomas went out of his way to bring up two other specific cases that he wants brought up to court to be overturned.

And then the guys are gonna go “well, gay marriage isn’t in the constitution”

“Contraceptives aren’t in the constitution”

Well what happens when a same case comes up to the court that personally affects him? That interracial marriage. Notice how he didn’t name that case? Because that would have a personal affect on him, even though it falls under the same interpretation as the two cases he mentioned.

And then what? Is someone gonna post “I’m not racist but where in the constitution does it allow people of different ethnicities get married?

“I’m not homophobic, but where in the constitution does it say gay marriage is allowed?”

I love how people want to blend originalist interpretations of the constitution and when they don’t, just to suit their narrative.

Honestly. I feel bad for women. Women thought these conservative losers were bad at stalking them now and shooting up places cause they can’t get dates, boy oh boy it’s bout to get a whole lot worse when women do actually decide to close their legs.

Birth rates gonna drop, incels gonna grow in population, violence against women will climb, and I’m going to be laughing harder at these right wing males. It’s about to be a bunch of sausage parties in moms basement still whining about feminism. Better hope the Japanese make advances on them sex robots STAT.

WSU…
So a mistake was made. You want to compound that by bringing a child into the world to a parent that already has proven to be a poor decision maker, and that doesn’t want/can’t afford the kid?
Sounds like you’re punishing the child for a choice it didn’t make. I’d hate to be raised in such a household. One’s chance of having a positive outcome as an adult drops dramatically. Likely they’ll go on to make the same mistakes and perpetuate the problem. (see studies of teenage parents leading to another generation of teenage parents, etc).

What outcomes do you see for all these unwanted kids being forced into the world? Living quiet lives in the suburbs with an active set of parents, with a minivan and a Beemer in the driveway? Lol… delusional.
Where do you see these children in 12-16 years? Top students? Making great life choices by modeling their already proven unresponsible parents?
What world do you all live in that you see bringing unwanted kids, typically from lower income households, into the world as a positive? Oh, but the cell clumps… the precious unwanted cell clumps have a right to be born into a hellscape of a life.

Dear God the denial of reality is on full display in this thread.

Lima explained the original court ruling to you in an above post and how it tied into the constitution. Beyond that I can't help you.

I’ll just highlight those areas so everyone is clear what this is about…

Of course that's what he and others want. We have millions of single women raising children when the men abandoned them. We have drug addicts that become pregnant. We have women who are raped and victims of incest that become pregnant. We have teen age girls who aren't even old enough to buy beer become pregnant. But never mind all of that. None of that makes any difference. I mean after all, they made a mistake, right? Oh yeah, accept for those who are victims of rape and incest. I wonder why they think making the mistake of getting pregnant deserves a life sentence?

j/c

World leaders react to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

The international community is speaking out after Friday's landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, marking a major change in abortion rights in the United States.

In the dissenting opinion, the court's three liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote the U.S. "will become international outliers after today."

Below is a look at the reactions of some of the world's highest leaders.

United Nations

UN Secretary General spokesperson Stephane Dujarric on Friday reiterated the organization's position on abortion: "That sexual and reproductive health and rights are the foundation of a life of choice, empowerment and equality for the world's women and girls."

"It's also important to note that restricting access to abortion does not prevent people from seeking abortion; it only makes it more deadly," Dujarric added. "UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) tells us that some 45 per cent of all abortions around the world are unsafe, making it a leading cause of maternal [death]."

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called the ruling a "major setback."

"Access to safe, legal and effective abortion is firmly rooted in international human rights law and is at the core of women and girls' autonomy and ability to make their own choices about their bodies and lives, free of discrimination, violence and coercion," Bachelet said. "This decision strips such autonomy from millions of women in the U.S., in particular those with low incomes and those belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, to the detriment of their fundamental rights."

United Kingdom

"Look, I'll be absolutely clear with everybody. This is not our court," U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Friday, according to the Associated Press. "It's another jurisdiction. But clearly, it has massive impacts on people's thinking around the world. It's a very important decision."

"I've got to tell you, I think it's a big step backwards," he added. "I've always believed in a woman's right to choose and I stick to that view and that's why the UK has the laws that it does and actually, if you look, we recently took steps to make sure that those laws were enforced throughout the whole of the U.K."

Scotland

"One of the darkest days for women's rights in my lifetime," First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said Friday. "Obviously the immediate consequences will be suffered by women in the US - but this will embolden anti-abortion & anti-women forces in other countries too. Solidarity doesn't feel enough right now - but it is necessary."

Canada

"The news coming out of the United States is horrific. My heart goes out to the millions of American women who are now set to lose their legal right to an abortion," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said. "I can't imagine the fear and anger you are feeling right now."

"No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body," he continued. "I want women in Canada to know that we will always stand up for your right to choose."

Spain

"We cannot take any rights for granted," Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, in a tweet translated to English. "Social achievements are always at risk of going backwards and their defense has to be our day to day. Women must be able to decide freely about their lives."

Norway

"The right to abortion can either be banned or tightened in several US states after the US Supreme Court has now overturned the historic ruling from 1972 that surely American women have this right," Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said, in a tweet translated to English. "This is a serious step backwards for women's rights!"

France

"Abortion is a fundamental right for all women," French President Emmanuel Macron said, in a tweet translated to English. "It must be protected. I express my solidarity with the women whose freedoms are today challenged by the Supreme Court of the United States of America."

"Appalling: the US Supreme Court's revocation of the right to abortion represents a major setback for fundamental rights," French Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna wrote Friday. "The [French] will continue to mobilize in their defense."

Belgium

"Very concerned about implications of [the Supreme Court] decision on #RoeVWade and the signal it sends to the world," Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said. "Banning abortion never leads to fewer abortions, only to more unsafe abortions. Belgium will continue to work with other countries to advance #SRHR everywhere."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-international-response/

As with many things, there are some Americans who think the rest of the globe is wrong and somehow we're the only nation who gets it right. Murica!

So now with RvW overturned it goes back to the states-it was my understanding that the Ohio law was on hold until fall, but I am mistaken


COLUMBUS, Ohio — A ban on most abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat became the law in Ohio on Friday following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Enforcement of Ohio’s 2019 “heartbeat” ban had been on hold for nearly three years under a federal court injunction. The state attorney general, Republican Dave Yost, asked for that to be dissolved because of the high court’s ruling, and a federal judge agreed hours later.

Gov. DeWine signed an executive order late Friday night for the Ohio Department of Health to adopt rules under the Heartbeat law "specifying the appropriate methods of performing an examination for the purpose of determining the presence of a fetal heartbeat of an unborn individual based on standard medical practice."

Critics had argued that the measure essentially prohibits abortions because the first detectable fetal heartbeat can occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

Although the injunction was dissolved, the case has not been dismissed.

A status conference will be scheduled to determine future proceedings in the case

https://www.10tv.com/article/news/l...530-ae0e7a91-9f20-47ec-94c6-cd4c6ede829a

It doesn't have to be in the constitution. Are seatbelts in the constitution? No. But we have a law saying you have to buckle up because as a society we determined it was the right thing to do to save lives. You see, the government IS there to solve the problems of the day. If not, would ALL still be running around like poop-throwing monkeys fighting over scraps. Thankfully only half the country has regressed to that. Meanwhile, those of us who don't live in a stone-age value system based on superstition and moral thought processes that haven't advanced since the 1600s witchhunts can see just how damaging these knuckle-dragging laws can be. And downplaying this as being a good thing is a farce at best. Women woke up yesterday with a right to choose what happens with their bodies and they went to bed without that right! They were made less than equal and free by a group of strangers over religious zealotry. And this "BUT THE STATES" BS can go where the sun doesn't shine too. Just more poop-throwing monkeys talk about people being different because of the geography we live in and some imaginary lines in the dirt. An unwanted child in Texas will suffer just as much as one in Maine. We are either one country OR we aren't. I would happily divide this country in two just to escape the mayhem of medieval idiocy like this, as long as nobody got STUCK in the wrong camp and got to choose where they wanted to live.

The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to own or control other people, because we used the founding framework as designed to end slavery and enact laws guaranteeing equality, freedom, and a woman's right to choose what happens with her body already. There is just a small group who wants to take us back to a time when those things did not exist. And it's this same small group that doesn't want women to have a choice, forcing this upon the other 70-80 percent that do. In what kind of value system is that remotely the fair and just thing to do? Oh yeah, the value system of the old-ass white Christian male-dominated societies in our horrific past! The same ones who brought us wars, witchhunts, hate, and mistrust since the beginning of recorded history; or at least the portion of history where White Christian Males rose to power and influence. A time when white Christian men thought of themselves above others who are different in even the slightest of ways; so much so that they justified owning people and treating women like property. And these same people now want to drag modern society back to that crap ass past, because some dumbass hate mongers told them that they are entitled to that kind of power like it's an Fn prize. All of you can have that crap, I want no part of it. Abortions aren't "killing babies" or "baby murder", and anyone with a 10th-grade education should know that and be able to wrap around it. But no, the braindead are dragging us back to the stone-age because "GOD" gave them their mission from inside a book written over 2000 years ago in THE STONE-AGE. A book that was written by the poop-throwing monkeys of the day, who were trying to wrap their undeveloped or underdeveloped minds around the PROBLEMS OF THEIR DAY. And not the problems of our day.

The founders who couldn't possibly conceive of the world we live in today didn't create a be-all-end-all doctrine to rule the lives of people in perpetuity! They created a mutable framework so we could come together and agree on how to change and adapt an evergreen document to handle the ISSUES OF THE DAY as we progress. Nowhere in that document does it say the constitution can never change, nowhere. Nowhere does it say any supposed "GOD" or just White Christian Males have total authority over the rest of us. And IF it did say that, it was designed to be changed when the majority of the country wanted that change. It also does not back the idea that 30% of the country gets to push their value system on 70% of the country. No, that is just small-minded entitlement thinking by people afraid they are being REPLACED by others because their ingrained thought processes won't allow them to adapt and grow past their stone-age mystical superstitious way of life.

But let's look at facts, since the beginning of time, abortions have been with us and mostly accepted behavior in one form or another. Herbal medicine was used to induce miscarriages throughout time. And the life of a fetus has never been so zealously protected in any religion or by any people, as it was yesterday when women's rights were stripped away. But some BS sense of morality somehow empowers the few to thrust a dystopian set of laws on the many? Anyone who subscribes to this asinine ideology with a straight face is too morally and mentally inept to lead anything in a modern world, let alone the most powerful country on earth. And by allowing this to stand in any form, the rest of us who want to live in a modern country striving to actually adapt and create a fair and open society, accepting of all, even the poop-throwing monkeys; well, it makes us complicit in all the harm it causes going forward and we cannot allow this to stand. You guys are right that it hasn't been decided yet, but not because the "States" get to weigh in. Nope, it hasn't been settled yet because the 70% disagree and will not allow it to stand. Thanks for letting us have this SAME battle again, and don't think for a second that we won't win this time too. So go celebrate your little victory that you had to cheat, steal, lie, and attempt a coup to corrupt our system enough to accomplish because we're about to deal with that BS too.

And they cried over being forced to wear a mask during a deadly pandemic, pfft.

Who gives a damn, that is their right. It is only a problem for religious zealots! It's her right to screw whoever she wants, as often as she wants, however she wants. And if any of that results in an unwanted pregnancy, it's her right because it's her body to choose what she wants then too. How hard can that be to wrap around? You don't have a say because it's not your life. Or is freedom only for the few? Just because you believe otherwise, doesn't give you the right to impose those beliefs on those of us who think differently. But y'all just can't wrap around that.

Magoo? Could you break out your childish translator and decipher this code for those of us who don't speak baby talk? Oh, the big bad socialist... You people have the nerve to say anything we (the left) do is bad while you trash the entire concept of freedom and democracy. Pfft.

Yep...it's about women's rights. She had the right to chose whether to have unprotected sex. She exercised that right. That is so damn simple that it isn't funny. All the other things you stated previously STILL have merit (re: unwanted children, lack of parenting, etc.)...but had she not had unprotected sex she would not have gotten pregnant. Period. THAT is where the issue started and is undeniable. It's not the end of the debate/issue...BUT every other point, counterpoint, debate, whatever...starts at the beginning. You act as if pregnancy was forced upon her...when it was not. (Except for rape, incest, harm to the mother.)

Look...you want to get all emotional about an issue as if we don't have a Constitution and as if the man & woman have no culpability in the pregnancy. But we do...and they did.

You want to argue whether abortion is a right provided-for in our Constitution. I want to argue that the federal government had - and has - no business in making that act a right. And MY point is what the SC ruled on. One's thoughts on abortion don't make even the slightest bit of difference when ruling on Constitutionality - well...to certain Justices anyway.

Apparently Magoo needs a child-level code decipher-er to understand the responsibility of the SC and the fact that the SC should not even remotely consider what the people "want".

I never once opined regarding who the woman and man can/should have sex with. I don't care. I'm not imposing my beliefs on sex or abortion on anyone. The issue is one for the states to rule on. The federal government should stay out of it.

You liberals are fighting over a January 6th false flag and now your leaders are leading the new Nazi Brownshirts????

You are giving out addresses of the SCOTUS to riot and destroy??? Sounds familiar!

Last Night in America: Democrat Brownshirts
By M Dowling -June 25, 2022

Riots and disruptive protests took place in major cities throughout the nation last night after numerous Democrats urged radical abortionists to take to the streets.

Rioters attempted to breach the Arizona capitol building in Phoenix while the Arizona Senate was in session.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety issued the following statement: “Troopers deployed gas outside the Senate building after protesters attempted to break the glass. The crowd then moved to the Wesley Bolin Plaza where some monuments were vandalized. Gas was deployed again to disburse the crowd.”

You can see a clip of that insurrection below.

Barack Obama added his kindling to the flames. He falsely claimed the ruling is an attack on freedoms. That isn’t true. It was the opposite of an attack on freedoms. The Court’s decision put abortion back in the hands of the people.

“Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent,” Barack Tweeted, “it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.”

Bernie Sanders, a big supporter of forced vaccination has a different view on killing the unborn.

“Overturning Roe v. Wade and denying women the right to control their own bodies,” Bernie tweeted, “is an outrage and in defiance of what the American people want. Democrats must now end the filibuster in the Senate, codify Roe v. Wade, and once again make abortion legal and safe.”

The Democrat Brownshirts were called to arms and they have begun with their night of rage. They terrorize and make city streets unsafe. Crickets from Attorney General Merrick Garland and Joe Biden. That’s because these people are their Brownshirts.

The corrupt US media has no problem with any of this. When they do cover it, you won’t hear the acrimonious invective you hear from them over J6.

At least two Supreme Court justices have been moved to safety, perhaps all of them. The radicals passed around their addresses.



Ana Navarro goes full Hitlerian and indicates that her handicapped relatives should have been aborted.







The communists are using the Roe decision to terrorize people.







They can do anything they want.





Anything at all.



They’re everywhere. These people are part of subversive communist Brownshirts and our DOJ and FBI have little to no interest in that fact.





The fires have begun.





Assaulting police is what Brownshirts do.



Communist Democrats fuel the flames to get votes.



As Victor Davis Hanson said, we are under mob rule, a post-constitutional phase.

https://rumble.com/v19kkmx-victor-davis-hanson-explains-this-is-a-revolution.html

https://www.independentsentinel.com/last-night-in-america-democrat-brownshirts/

1. The Supreme Court got it right with guns. (In constitution)

2. The Supreme Court got it right with abortion. (Not in the constitution) Goes back to the states to decide on an individual basis.

Those are the facts. Do I agree with number 1? Absolutely, as should every single American. Number 2? Not really.

Personally, I don't care what another person does with their body. I support abortion and actually think there should be an amendment added to the constitution, and more centers need to be set up throughout the states to make access for every individual that feels they may need help.

I don't understand what is accomplished by overturning Roe V Wade. It takes away freedom.

You certainly never mentioned the mans role or choice though. Like only women were involved in getting pregnant. Some of us have noticed how that seems to be a common theme.

You mean like when I posted this:

"Look...you want to get all emotional about an issue as if we don't have a Constitution and as if the man & woman have no culpability in the pregnancy. But we do...and they did."

I don't see where anyone has absolved the man's side of a pregnancy. There is a common theme of reading only what one wants and/or missing what one doesn't want to see.

I don't care if someone has an abortion. It's none of my business. I don't want the federal government involved in the issue and I don't want my tax dollars used to pay for it.

No, I meant this post right here. This entire post lays 100% of the blame on the woman alone.

So, you only considered one piece of evidence and completely threw out another piece of evidence because it didn't fit your biased narrative. That's par for the course for you. Trying to win an argument at all costs. Not playing fair. Not discussing. You are a freaking joke. Bring in the We Team for support.

Verses what, the "I whine team"? Maybe you should report that or call more people an "impotent old man" for better impact and effect. The one who calls quotes coming from his own posts lies doesn't have any room to cast stones. Keep going Shemp.

Context matters. That post was in response to Portland - who himself was focused only on the woman...and was posting as if she was an innocent bystander in a drive-by shooting.

And in the case if rape?
What about stealthing?
Why does the women end up bearing all the responsibility? Why do we not hold the men culpable?

If I misunderstood your comments, my mistake. I just took the post at face value.

Great comeback. Your garbage is so freaking old. You have no interest in discussion. No interest in fairness. You aren't even man enough to fight fairly. Picking and choosing which information to use. Gotta win that argument and pretend to be a man, when in fact, you have the emotional maturity of 13 year old boy.

I thought you were all about class? I thought you were the one who called people out for making such posts? The fact you get called on your BS doesn't mean it's not fair. It means you have no room to talk about others acting like a 13 year old. So OCD is old an impotent and I act like a 13 year old boy according to you? Boy aren't you on a roll today. You have become what you claim to hate and are too blind to see it.

Drink another one....

Right. Says the guy who completely ignored one comment by WSU while focusing only on another comment just to win an argument and show WSU up. Now, go tell another lie.

Which has been addressed. Try to keep up for a change. Speaking of liars.....

I have not dipped my toes into the pool of whether abortion should be legal or not. I do not support it, but it's really none of my business. I have dove head first into the pool of the federal government keeping it's nose out of the abortion business/issue and that the federal government should not use federal tax dollars to fund it.

That said, I believe abortion should be an option for pregnancies caused by rape, incest and danger for the woman. HOWEVER, if one is impregnated after a rape or incest the decision HAS to have a time limit. I don't have an opinion on the time 'limit', but it's not after months have passed since conception.

On the man note: If I were 'in charge' men who don't take responsibility for a pregnancy that they participated-in would not like me at all...no...they'd hate me. I find it abhorrent the number of fatherless children in this country. We are not animals - especially not the children. You father a child you can't support you will be tracked and $$$ taken from you...if you father a second child that you can't support, you are getting the big V to make damn sure you don't father a 3rd child...or you can go to jail. No exceptions. Women would also face harsh action for continuing to make babies they cannot support. If one isn't responsible enough to care for life one created, then you are giving up the right/ability to re-produce.

I'm fiscally very conservative...but as I age...I become more and more Libertarian on social issues and life. Our Constitution is the guide. There is too much government and not enough accountability.

I have never made my views on abortion public on here. I have said I hate the extremists on both sides. People blowing up abortion clinics are extremists. It's mind boggling how they think it might be okay to kill a person to protect the rights ....I better stop there. I also hate those who are being violent because of the law.

As a man, I don't think it is my place to judge women if they have an abortion or not. I can say that I always believed that the man should take care of a child who is born from his seed and if he doesn't, he should be punished.

Personal story: My daughter practiced safe sex or no sex at all [probably not--LOL] until she was married. She and her husband immediately tried to have a child. She's miscarried twice. Those who think that casually having an abortion might want to consider that many women struggle to have a child. Well, she is pregnant now. There were some bad signs. She was told that the baby had fluid on her neck and would have heart issues. One specialist said the baby would be still-born. My daughter and her husband considered abortion if that was the case. I would have supported her no matter her decision. Thankfully, the fluid is gone and the baby is the right size for her age. The heart rate was good.

I don't know.........I think people should probably be more sensitive when discussing a topic such as this one. Some of these opinions are over the top and frankly, they sometimes infuriate me or deeply sadden me.

I am not against abortion like some extremists are. However, I do wish that people would do more to prevent pregnancy if they have no desire to have a child. While there are exceptions to any rule, birth control and abstinence, are generally quite effective. I don't think it's a good idea to put one's own pleasure ahead of everything else.

Impotent? lmao, ok Mr. Limpy.

You mean the thinest minority of people while flying in the face of the overwhelming majority? lmao, you can't make this garbage up.

We have (3) separate and distinct branches of government...you should look it up.

Sure you didn't. None of this is any of your damn business or the government. Only if it involves a minor or non-consensual sex. The two things Old White Christian GOPer leadership love to do is taboo, so they go after every woman in the country because their base incels and religious zealots cry about it. Pfft. I have granddaughters that will be affected by your parties BS for most of their adult lives now. Vers. did you read that? Then shut up. And as for you Willie, you and everyone like you should be ashamed of what you are doing to this country. Disgusting.

You're a troll and your schtick is worn out Q. And just like that, every time the left protest, here comes the NGO reports. That turd wouldn't know ANTIFA if they were sleeping with his mama. Yet you guys post his crap like it's gospel. RIDICULOUS.

No crap and one of those is now under the control of extremists representing less than 30% of the population. YOU ARE A MINORITY. The majority does not share your views. Your opinions don't matter to the majority on this topis. We don't care if you think GOD is on your side. What don't you get about that?

Huh? Where did I say anything about God? You are unhinged. Seems like Magoo isn't the only one who does not understand that there are (3) branches of government and a Constitution that has to be followed until amended. Ranting like an incoherent lunatic shows the world exactly why our government is set-up as it is...to protect the masses from the whims and irrationality of people just like you. Magoo should know better...and so should you.

I wish that was in coherent English so we could all enjoy your pearls of dim-dom.

When was the last time the Extreme Court asked for your opinion? I know I didn't have a say. And since when should the minority rule democracy? Sorry, those questions don't fit your narrative and narrow worldview.

I really have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Not being snarky. I simply did not like you telling other people they have no say. They can speak if they like. You aren't their boss.

Here is what I posted about abortion not too long ago. Not sure how they align w/what you and Swish are claiming about me?

So I had thoughts about all this and I thought I might jot some down. This is not in response to anyone particular but will likely touch on things said.

When we talk about constitutional rights we need to understand what the constitution is and what it isn't. The constitution describes the three branches of government, empowers them with their authority and sets limits on them. It does not, nor has it ever, given us rights. Any rights you have are natural rights, these come from you being a human, not from the piece of paper. Your right to free speech was not created by the constitution, it was created by you being human. Some see this as coming from God, from nature, the universe. It does not matter where, it is outside us.

When we look at things like free speech the constitution guarantees that the government will not "abridged". The constitution places the limit on the government on what it can do with specific natural rights. They are written, I don't need to enumerate the list. Abortion is not on the list of specific rights that are off limits from the government, it is not a constitutionally protected right.

The idea it is not a constitutionally protected right leads to the question, is it a right at all? Some will say no, and the reasoning is not important. Some will say yes, again the reason is not important. It is a tricky question, but what the Dobbs v Jackson decision tells us is that it is not constitutionally protected and as such, the court corrected a bad ruling that protects it as a "constitutional right". I do think the reasoning in this was sound, people just don't like the result of that. To be honest though, the court did not ban abortion, it didn't make it illegal, it didn't place limits on it.

The constitution provides three separate but equal branches of government, each with their own responsibility. The legislative branch should decide on the legality of abortion, not the judicial branch, that is not their job. One of the weakness of the original Roe decision, and the concurring Casey decision is the opinion was written like law, it was legislating from the bench. That is a bad thing for the republic.

Someone mention how many people want abortion to be legal. Those people need to work the system correctly and work the legislative branch, they are there for the majority of people stuff. We let them know what we want when we elect them, if they don't do it we find someone who will (well, in theory at least). As a republic we do this through the arbitrary idea of states and those that represent the state.

The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is now dead. It isn't coming back, at least no time soon. Having legislators on TV yelling the court is illegitimate is counter productive and flat out wrong. The court did it's job, those legislators should do theirs if they want to protect abortion.

As a bit extra, I have discussed my views previously on abortion but I don't think in the context of the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson it matters at all. There is a lot of angst that boils down to people's feelings on the subject, those should be directed where they are appropriate, the legislative branch.

jc

My county's DA has said they wont prosecute anyone having an abortion even if GA bans it or has the heartbeat law.

WOW.

Defense Department to keep access to "reproductive health care" after Roe v. Wade's end

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Friday that the Pentagon is working to ensure that members of the military, their families and its civilian employees will still have access to "reproductive health care" after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The Defense Department currently does not have a policy to accommodate service members or employees who are seeking an abortion but are stationed in a state that has outlawed abortion, Politico reports.

• Federal law currently allows military medical facilities to provide abortions only in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger, while the military's health program is allowed to cover abortions at private facilities for those same reasons only.

What they're saying: "Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families," Austin said in a statement on Friday.

• "I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force. The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law," he added.

The big picture: The court's decision may further strain the military's recruitment efforts — already hampered by low employment and other factors — as potential recruits may fear being stationed in states that have banned abortions, according to Bloomberg.

• Women make up around 20% of the military's 1.3 million-member active-duty force, and 95% of them are of reproductive age, according to Stars and Stripes citing department statistics.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/25/defense-department-abortion-access-roe-v-wade

US Senator Admits Desire for Return of Segregation

After the devastating reversal of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS this week which prohibits women from having bodily autonomy, US Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) used the opportunity to make another request from the US Supreme Court; reverse Plessy vs. Ferguson/Board of Education and reinstitute legal segregation of races.



Homer Plessy, a biracial Man, was arrested in 1892 for sitting in the Whites-Only section of a passenger train that was taking him from New Orleans to Covington, a short journey by standards of the day. The conductor of the train demanded Plessy move to the section reserved for Black people even though the White’s- only section of the train was empty, so Plessy refused.

Mr. Plessy deeply disapproved of segregation and the law instituted two years prior which included segregation on train cars. This led him to test the limits of the law itself and demonstrate it’s abuse and unconstitutionality.

He was charged and convicted in court by the presiding Judge, John H. Ferguson. Ferguson claimed in his ruling that segregation of the races was a constitutional law that still favored the “Separate but Equal” doctrine.

Mr. Plessy then sued Judge Ferguson for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Plessy and other Black activists and allies at the time had been attempting to mobilize the community to fight back against the avalanche of Jim Crow laws that were legitimizing bigotry and weaponizing legislation to harm Black Americans.

And he lost.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that “Separate but Equal” functioned in a way that satisfied the constitution, using that as justification for continued segregation and discrimination. According to History.com; “The Court denied that segregated railroad cars for Black people were necessarily inferior. “We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy’s] argument,” Justice Henry Brown wrote, ‘to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.’”

Only one Judge dissented from the ruling, Hustice John Marshall Harlan who had, himself, disagreed that slaves should be free or be granted any civil rights. However, he changed his position on the case largely because of the atrocious acts committed by White Nationalist groups like The Ku Klux Klan who has often created and taken the law into their own hands where it concerned the Black community throughout the South.

It wasn’t until 1954 when the Landmark ruling for Brown vs. Board of Education came down that the US Supreme Court revisited Plessy’s case from nearly 50 years prior when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his ruling that “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and that segregation in public schools had been “inherently unequal.” The majority of the Supreme Court Justices sided with the plaintiff’s in the Brown case and had determined that the Black community was indeed being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

Overturning Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education means segregation would be returned to the individual states to determine instead of a federal law.

I’ve frequently spoken about how profoundly emboldened Trump acolytes serving in the highest echelons of government have become with their bigotry, but Senator Cornyn’s public missive, enthusiastically expressing his desire to use the majority Conservative Supreme Court to legitimize discrimination by enshrining it into law once again should absolutely terrify everyone. This archaic attitude regarding race should never be tolerated, especially from a lawmaker.

This is where we are, with the new Supreme Court comprised of Trump-Era conservative Judges willing to revoke rights to suit a religious ideology and show off their intolerance like a boy scout badge they’re proud of. This is unforgivable and certainly makes it evident what Cornyn’s intentions are.

Justice Clarence Thomas has signaled that he is urging the Supreme Court to also revisit other landmark rulings with the intent to overturn them, including equal marriage, contraception access and the decriminalization of gay sex. With all that’s happened, this should be considered an inevitability now that all laws not codified are the target.

It should be noted that the Texas GOP submitted a resolution to reject the results of the 2020 election and live in a fantasy world where the former President is still the President. They’ve also discusses seceding from the US, claiming that “Woke Culture” is destroying the country.

At this point, if Cornyn’s vile comments represent the entirety of the Texas political body, I’d be happy to see them go. They do not represent America, and it’s becoming more evident by the day. It’s also quite staggering that a man saturated by privilege and holding one of the most respected seat in the nation can boast about such divisive and hostile beliefs yet somehow still serve from that seat without a shred of shame.

We’ve normalized this behavior from our leaders now. They’re emboldened by their impunity. We as a people have accepted more than any population of any country ever should. We are lied to, manipulated, referred to as teams emphasizing their polarizing efforts to appeal to only one ilk of the American melting pot. Today, a Trump endorsed candidate for Illinois state Congress, Mary Miller, told those at her rally that “Hitler got one thing right… Whoever has the youth has the future.” She said, referencing the necessity of recruiting youth into the GOP movement.



They aren’t even being discreet about their prejudices anymore because they’ve never seen one of them pay any political consequences. America is a country where a President can attempt a coup by manipulating millions of people into believing they are victims, carry on with the big lie of a stolen election, commit more crimes than a Chicago gangster in the 30's…. and run for President again. We have come to expect and accept this corrosive behavior from powerful men. We feel powerless as a community, we’ve witnessed unthinkable assaults on our better sensibilities only to see no one pay any consequences. This has resulted in these politicians feeling incredibly brave- fearless even- because… what are you gunna do about it?

And I suppose that’s a fair question.

Until then, I’ll leave you with more commentary from this sitting Senator who will be running for re-election.

Just pondering Mussolini…



Disappointed at the shifting demographic of his State means white people won’t always be the majority.



More cops, more guns, pushing that Texas rumor that the State motto is actually God, Guns and Glory.



On the reversal of Roe v Wade:



Oh, the horrors…



https://phaylen.medium.com/us-senator-admits-desire-for-return-of-segregation-9cc5524d9ef0

One thing some need to understand. The Courts ruling didn't ban abortion. It simply overturned Roe from making it a federal mandate which it never should have from the start. There are many examples of the law allowing community standards to have weight in determining if a law if just or unfair. Just as a broad brush example, that is why you see strip clubs being allowed in some places and not allowed in others. Those decisions are allowed for each community to make.

The standards of one community can vary from another. Some states allow gambling, some don't. It isn't the place for the Federal government to step in and say what is right or what is wrong. They leave that up to the states to regulate.

Women will still be able to get abortions. As we are starting to see, means are starting to pop up that will make that available to those who want an abortion, be it they might have to travel some distance to receive one.

Abortion survivors, in wake of Supreme Court ruling, reveal their 'trauma' but rejoice in a 'new dawn'
Three women who survived their mothers' abortion attempts spoke about their lives after the Supreme Court's abortion decision

"I survived a failed saline infusion abortion attempt back in 1977," said Ohden.

"After being poisoned and scalded in the womb over a five-day period, I was accidentally born alive in the final step of that abortion procedure," she revealed.

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/abortion-survivors-supreme-court-trauma-dawn

Oh so we gonna ignore this one, huh.

Well, we all know what “states rights” is code for.

And people will still claim it doesn’t mean what we all know it means. One of the oldest dog whistles in the American books.

Watch out, they are going to call you an extremist. I mean I've told them this cap for years now and they just laugh at me.

I addressed the States thing here Peen. https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1953094/re-sc-rulings#Post1953094

I’ve been called worst around here. Extremist would be trump level trash talk at this point.

I don't know why you insist in repeating this fairy tale over and over and over. You act like anybody born into any situation without two perfect and rich parents then their life isn't worth living and we just need to snuff them out in the womb. The reality is very few of the people on earth are born into that situation. Nobody has a perfect life and to tell you the truth who wants one? If everything is handed to you on a silver platter your whole life you don't appreciate them. My parents got married young.... yep Mom was preggers. Did they struggle with money.... yep sure did just like most Americans do. My wife grew up with only her father (yep you guessed it her mother didn't want anything to do with her) her step mother hated her as well. According to you her life wasn't worth living since her mom didn't want her, she would have been better of being slaughtered in the womb. Many of my friends grew up in homes with parents who were divorced once, twice, or even more often. Many grew up in homes where one parent left, of was killed, or died. A few lost both parents, yet in all my years none of them have told me... Gee I wish I was never born.

My brothers and I grew up just fine and happy without much money. My wife turned out just fine after growing up with a Mom who didn't want her, and a step mother that didn't want her either. She had a tough childhood, followed up by a wonderful 41 years of life, kids, and grandkids,and a old funny looking husband.

Yet I don't hear you running around like a chicken with it's head cut off about losing your freedom. Why are we forced to wear them, they restrict our movement, and chafe our nipples. Besides why is it that kids have to be covered in bubble wrap and parents are forced to spend hundreds of dollars on car seats, but their kids don't have to wear them on a school bus. BTW just look around this thread and around the world. We are already and have been for a long time running around like poop throwing monkeys fighting over scraps.



Any five year old knows abortion is killing babies. That's one thing that ticks me off. Call it what it is murder instead of trying to dress up the words to sound less offensive. Why don't you call it abortion when a mother kills her 1 month old child, or 1 year old child? Nope ya get all up in arms about how sick and twisted a woman is if she kills her babies outside of the womb, but if she kills him/her in the womb then oh hell yes it's all cool.

Okay you will now return to your rants about how it's all Christians fault for everything wrong in this world, and insult us Christians and those athiests, agnostics, Dems, and independants who are against abortion.

LOL...I guess one could call him Uncle Sam.

It's not their right in Ohio now if a heartbeat can be heard. I have been hearing for years on these boards that abortion is legal so they are not breaking any laws. Well now they will be. The shoe is now on the other foot and you know how I have felt for the last 49 years.

Bingo.

Bingo.

This pales in comparison to what else he has been called these past few days.

It’s not a baby it’s a cell clump. And you know it. It’s not a heartbeat. It’s the electrical impulse of cells arranging themselves.

"Jesus was not killed by atheism
and anarchy. He was brought down
by law and order allied with religion,
which is always a deadly mix.
Beware those who claim to know
the mind of God and who are
prepared to use force, if necessary,
to make others conform. Beware
those who cannot tell God's will
from their own."
-Barbara Brown Taylor


I’ll support any Ohioan that wants out of that craphole to travel to Oregon for a ‘camping trip’. Camping is legal in Oregon and we have plenty of beautiful places to do so.

Shove your religion.

I am thankful a step has been taken to end this nations culture of death created by the Left.

If you’re gay, trans or in a mixed race marriage….. God's republican mobs are coming for you next. Better for you to go back into the closet and hide again.

I think it was God’s will to have all those abortions take place. God realized this planet was already overrun and was wanting us to curb it.
You all turned your back on his will.

Humans are over rated and think of themselves as far more important than they are. God’s greatest creation, earth, would be better without us. That’s the truth.
Bring on the asteroid.

People always say "think globally, act locally"

You are your own solution.

It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter when life begins,
It doesn't matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.
That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a
subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter
less.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a fertilized egg,
or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize
winning pediatric oncologist.
NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will,
even to save their life, or the life of another person.
That's it
That's the argument.
You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs,
even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists.
They cannot even harvest your organs after your death
without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.
Denying women the right to abortion means they have less
bodily autonomy than a corpse.

I didn’t breed for a reason. I could see the scourge humanity was from a young age. This planet and it’s inhabitants are better off without more of us on it. When I’m gone it’s over. The religious nuts can take over. Let us fall under sharia law. I honestly don’t care. I just wanted to spend my little time left not surrounded by insanity. It’s too late for that I guess.
I’m over humanity. It’s gross.
Bring on the asteroid.

It's a baby and it's a heartbeat.

Well according to Bible, god ain’t pro life either. He did try to drown all of humanity after all, and let his own kid get crucified.

Show me a photo of a 6 week old heart. I challenge you.

And shove your religion.

Only after the Rapture

It’s Sunday, shouldn’t you be at church praying to your sky daddy?
Shove. Your. Religion.

I don't have any web sites saved that show a babies heart at 6 weeks and it is so small that I will take your word that there are none out there. But here you go listen to the heartbeat 8 weeks into a pregnancy. Just listen to that little sucker go

I don't attend Church Services anymore. But you can have a nice day bro.

My dog’s tail wags rhythmically. Is it a heart?
You can’t find a photo of a 6 week old heart because there is no such thing as a six week old heart.

Hey man, just because you have sensitive nipples is no cause to put "our nipples" in there. Speak for yourself.

Franks says he's all about individual freedom. Right up to the point he is not.

A - Because it's a common-sense law.

B - That's your POV, not mine. And like you, I find your opinions on the matter asinine and always have. But I don't come at your personally out of respect for you, maybe that should change.

Take those responses for whatever you will and yes, I will post whatever I want when I want, with or without your 'blessing'.

Since you don't know I will help you out. Your dogs tail is a ...... hang on it's a shocker.... It's a tail.


Glad I could clear up your confusion.

I didn't even bring up my man boobs getting crushed

I have zero problems with you disagreeing with me. Never have never will. As far as you not coming at me personally.... You bash Christians all the time, you run us down and call us all kinds of crap. I'm a Christian... so that means your saying those things about me and my family so don't sit there and claim you don't come at me personally because thats not true bro.

It's their right no matter where they are and no matter what a GOPer government tried to push on them. Only somebody like you thinks you have the right to impose this upon women you will never ever know. This kind of thinking came with the tea party, so you don't get to play the good GOPer and talk this trash. Do you think people quit being people or any basic need changes with the government ruling them? If you do, you are brainwashed as they come. No law or government has the right to do what this extreme court just did. Nobody has a right to tell you what to do with your own body. Owning slaves or holding women as chattel ARE NOT YOUR RIGHT. Get over yourself and come into the modern world. Take this BS and shove it, because it doesn't mean a damn thing to me. Extremist GOPer laws are inherently STUPID, gutless, and heartless because the extremist GOPers are inherently STUPID, gutless, and heartless. Now bring more BS if you want because I brought my shovel.

Slip of the tongue?

U.S. Rep. Mary Miller immediately drew fierce backlash on social media and elsewhere at a Saturday night rally with former President Donald Trump when she credited him for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade calling it a “victory for white life.”

“I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,” Miller said, then raised her arms in an animated clap amid cheers from the crowd, which numbered in the thousands on a sweltering day in West Central Illinois.

But Miller’s campaign said Saturday night that the congresswoman misread prepared remarks at a rally that Trump held for her in the village of Mendon

https://www.newsweek.com/millers-wh...n-tweet-attacked-pro-segregation-1719263

Slip of the tongue?

U.S. Rep. Mary Miller immediately drew fierce backlash on social media and elsewhere at a Saturday night rally with former President Donald Trump when she credited him for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade calling it a “victory for white life.”

“I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,” Miller said, then raised her arms in an animated clap amid cheers from the crowd, which numbered in the thousands on a sweltering day in West Central Illinois.

But Miller’s campaign said Saturday night that the congresswoman misread prepared remarks at a rally that Trump held for her in the village of Mendon

https://www.newsweek.com/millers-wh...n-tweet-attacked-pro-segregation-1719263

Are you slow? Read my sig. And I never target you, I post generalities, just like when you and others run down the left, or socialist (progressives), or non-believers. And when I do direct a comment, it's deserved. So stick to your opinions about me where the sun doesn't shine. I don't give a damn what you think or how you feel.

Yet you’re still confused by a cell clump not being a baby, and an electrical impulse not being a heart. Still can’t find that photo of a 6 week old heart? You know why? Because Bigfoot has the only one. In other words… it doesn’t exist.

Facts don't matter. Don't waste your time bro.

She said what she meant. Or what She thought would help her. Who knows what republicans really believe and what they say because it will help them gain money and power. She did not misread anything.

You can term it a cell clump all you want, it is still self dividing human cell life. I assume you agree that cells are a form of life and agree they are human cells.

If we found that on Europa or wherever, you would be one of the first claiming it is life and one of the great events in human history.

You're not heading out to burn down your city are you?

Rhode Island police officer will face charges for off-duty actions at abortion protest

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A Rhode Island police officer accused of punching a woman at an abortion protest while he was off-duty was suspended from his job with pay Saturday and is facing charges.

Jennifer Rourke, Rhode Island Political Cooperative Chairwoman and a state Senate candidate, told the Providence Journal she was punched in the face at least twice by Jeann Lugo, the officer who had also been her challenger in the state Senate race.

I guess just like watson he forgot about what his mom taught him in regards to how you treat women. I'm sure she didn't teach him to beat them.



Lugo told the Journal on he was "not going to deny" the punching allegation, but added that "everything happened very fast."

"As an officer that swore to protect and serve our communities, I, unfortunately, saw myself in a situation that no individual should see themselves in," he said in the email to the Boston Globe. "I stepped in to protect someone that a group of agitators was attacking."

Lugo did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

Video of the event posted online shows two other individuals involved in a physical altercation at the protest right before a woman, apparently Rourke, is seen being hit. The video does not show what happened between Lugo and Rourke prior to Rourke being hit.

Lugo was arrested on a Rhode Island State Police affidavit and charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct. He turned himself into the Lincoln Woods Barracks where he was arraigned in front of a Justice of the Peace and released on personal recognizance.

Two others were also arrested at the demonstration. Jessica Burton, 39, of Warwick, Rhode Island, will face a charge of disorderly conduct, and Nicholas Morrell, 31, of Warwick, Rhode Island will face charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and weapons other than firearms.

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza addressed the conflict in a tweet but said he was limited in what he could say.

"I've seen the video and it's immensely disturbing," Elorza said. "Those responsible will be held fully accountable."

At midday Saturday, Lugo tweeted that he was dropping out of the race.

"I will not be running for any office this fall," he said.

In a news release announcing the suspension, Providence police said the suspended officer was a three-year veteran.

The altercation occurred during a Friday protest outside the Rhode Island State House in Providence that was in response to the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had provided a constitutional right to abortion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news...Co3snmuKxdrEOKamIiuD-kfEnDD2lANH1Jt58Sug

No more than you're marching toward the Capital carrying a Q Anon flag. But then you knew that.

It is hilarious when they slip up and say what they really mean. Then do their best back tracking to lie in an attempt to cover up what they said.

Trump showed them how to do it in a press conference where he said he wasnt really kissing Putins butt

She's JUST quoting Hitler, good thing nobody is calling them fascist.
Trump kept a copy of Mein Kampf beside his bed... We all know he didn't actually read it, it just made him feel good.

j/c

South Dakota governor says she will ban abortion pills prescribed online

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) on Sunday said she will ban telemedicine appointments with abortion care providers who prescribe pills online in the GOP-controlled state in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Noem told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that she brought a bill forward in her state to ban the telemedicine appointments in order to block women from being prescription abortion pills online and receiving them through the mail.

“These are very dangerous medical procedures,” Noem argued. “We don’t believe it should be available because it is a dangerous situation for an individual without being medically supervised by a physician.”

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, punting the future of abortion rights back to states to decide whether they want to ban abortion procedures or tighten restrictions.

South Dakota passed a trigger law that went into effect immediately after Roe was overturned.

The state’s law bans abortions except in the case of saving a mother’s life and makes it a felony to perform the procedure.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol, a legal fight is likely to ensue between GOP states pushing to restrict access to the pills and the federal government under the Biden administration.

Noem on Sunday said the Biden administration has “been overstepping its authority” and states will now decide what restrictions on abortions they wish to pass.

“The Constitution does not give a women the right to an abortion,” Noem told Brennan on CBS. “The power to make these decisions really goes to each individual state.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...B-IxLrjqLY-IRz4KLgDe0NjrBlCcyV4kb00jaJbw

They are sounding the death knell for their own party, every time they open their mouths. It's disgusting to hear yet great to witness at the same time.

Peen… if it was found on another planet it would be deemed a major scientific discovery worthy of protecting. You don’t hold this ‘right to life’ dogma when you’re eating BBQ ribs. Where’s your ire then? That pig was a cell clump at one point. Why are you eating living creatures?! You should be vegan. Stand for what you believe or admit to your absurdity of the sanctity of a fertilized egg.

I’ll admit I eat meat. That those are sentient creatures that give their lives for me. I accept my place and know my sins. You have a weird paradox that you hold. Humans are nothing more than another animal on this rock.

If we find a cell on Neptune let’s see what it’s about. If it’s a cell in your body and you know what it is and don’t want it in your body anymore…

Again…

It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter when life begins,
It doesn't matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.
That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a
subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter
less.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a fertilized egg,
or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize
winning pediatric oncologist.
NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will,
even to save their life, or the life of another person.
That's it
That's the argument.
You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs,
even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists.
They cannot even harvest your organs after your death
without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.
Denying women the right to abortion means women have less
bodily autonomy than a corpse.

I’ll start my own side hustle. Mailing out personal packages of Amazon purchased morning after pills. They can’t search every piece of personal mail.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

What it does is say "you want to fight".

Try again.

Awe....

Glad you finally agree.

Yeah, I agree that you will jump from individual freedoms to state's rights depending on your belief system from topic to topic. Others can read and watched you do just that.

Not sure how you think believing in individual freedom and SCOTUS returning this to the states is incongruent. But I am sure you will play your kindergarten games instead of having a discussion, because, well, you already have.

I haven't seen you try to have an actual discussion with me for a long time so don't play the victim card now.

You have claimed over and over again that the government has no right to infringe on personal freedoms of Americans. Now suddenly if it's state government that seems to make a difference to you.

Fact bombs.

So by this definition it should be illegal to remove a cancerous tumor

You had ample chance to respond to what I wrote instead of taking a shot. Don't act all innocent

Rioters in downtown Portland graffiti, smash windows following Supreme Court abortion case: 'Death to SCOTUS'

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rioters-portland-graffiti-supreme-court-abortion-crime

Usual response by Democrats when justice is served.

Your lucky Biden called for peaceful protest and we heard it or the whole damn country would be ablaze and rightfully so. But Fox reporting a few isolated incidents so dimwits like Tucker and Ingraham can downplay the insidious attempted coup and insurrection is just your style. Let me find my crayons and Qsplain how it's not comparable. But y'all go ahead and get your circle smirk on, we are too busy laughing at you to care.

BTW - if there is any horrific violence, it's 1000% on the Extreme Court for their lies, deceit, and treachery.

And SB, I'm glad you formed an entire sentence of original thought without spamming us with another article from the sphincter of the internet.

Insurrectionists' opinions don't matter.

The country should be set ablaze because we give a possible life a chance to grow and live?

Y'all are sick.

They smash up Starbucks and destroy a Tesla.

Only in Portland!

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows A 'Kid' In The Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sarah-huckabee-sanders-vows-kid-000349731.html

Yikes.

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.

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.

These teams and businesses should look to relocate to states that don't practice human rights violations. Kicking GOPers in their wallets is the best way to get their attention.

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.

Lot's of luck with that. Every case is different and every argument is different. Settled law is sometimes unsettled as new arguments are presented.

Roe was never black letter law. It was red letter from the start.

So you are saying you didn't read it and want me to just explain it to you?

I think by mid-fall we will have seen our young people out in force with their fascist stompers on. And I'm not calling for it, trying to encourage it, or otherwise wanting it to happen, but there do seem to be rumblings. They are getting pissed at Biden and demanding more than "get out the vote." Have read about calls Dems to unite and kill the filibuster, for 5 Extreme court dis-justices to be impeached and removed, And for Biden to increase the court seats to thirteen, being one for each circuit court. They really want the filibuster gone and Senators Manchin and Sinema to sign on. Manchin seems to be under incredible pressure, even in his home state.

But you support forcing 17 year olds to give birth and have stated in so many ways that they’re capable, adult enough, to raise kids… even though you think adulthood should be moved to 21 because 18 year olds aren’t adults? Man you’re a walking paradox.

Why should my nephew have to play MD search?! He pays his insurance premiums. He’s using his in network MD. Why should he have to play stupid games and or pay for out of network MDs? The MD just needs to cut the damn kid and put his own personal belief nonsense aside.

This is what I'm having a hard time with right now... not necessarily as it pertains to this issue, as it has become common place with every issue or law that a certain side doesn't agree with. Like... "racism is unfair, I refuse to prosecute black people"... "poverty is unfair, I refuse to set bail for poor people"... "immigration laws are whack, just let them drive without a license, vote without an I.D., etc, etc...

elections are trash, lets just storm the capital...

Fritos are good with a bologna sandwich.

mayo or mustard

m
Mayo makes it a trailer park meal for sure.

Ketchup = trailer park
Mayo = double-wide

Does it matter? I mean their next step is to outlaw condiments, right?

Every single bit of this is "I didn't get my way so stack the system so I can have my way!".

It seems now extremist means following the constitution. The filibuster is there to slow down the government, it works and is a good thing. Sometimes it means not getting your way, but it was designed to promote compromise.

Stacking the court for political gain is what extremists do.

This is where all those participation trophies has landed us.