╌>

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 years ago  •  361 comments

By:   Ronn Blitzer (Fox News)

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, with their ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion.

The opinion comes after a leak of a draft opinion from February striking down Roe caused nationwide debate and promoted pro-choice activist protests at the homes of the six conservative justices. In addition, dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized since the opinion leak, Catholic churches were targeted for protests and unrest, and a suspect was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito briefly addressed the status of the court amid pro-choice protests after Politico published Alito's leaked draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade (1973).

The high court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2021. Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart argued in support of the law. He also argued that two landmark abortion cases that kept state governments from prohibiting abortions at certain points during a pregnancy - Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey - be overturned.

Pro-life advocates believe that the state is the best forum for debate over abortion restrictions, and see the overturn of Roe as the rightful return of the issue to the states.

At least 13 Republican-led states have already passed "trigger laws," in the event Roe is overturned, that would immediately restrict access to abortion if the Supreme Court went so far as to overturn the 50-year precedent.

Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, has reported.

On the other hand, pro-choice advocates will have to work to codify Roe or enact looser abortion restrictions by passing state-level legislation.

New York passed a bill in 2018 designed to codify Roe, and other blue states are expected to follow suit after the Supreme Court's ruling.

Public opinion polling has also indicated that despite that more than six in 10 registered voters think the court should uphold Roe, the majority of Americans are in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

When Americans were asked in a recent Fox News poll about how they would feel if a law banning abortions after 15 weeks were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed.

At the federal level, the Senate failed to advance a bill to codify federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the week following the leaked draft.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the vote on the Women's Health Protection Act. It needed 60 votes to advance but died in a 51 to 49 tally, with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining with all 50 Republicans in voting no.

President Biden immediately condemned Republicans for blocking the abortion rights legislation at a time when "women's constitutional rights are under unprecedented attack." He called on voters to elect more Democrats in November so that the legislation can get passed next year.

Democratic campaign arms have already signaled that abortion will be a key issue heading into the midterms and will galvanize their base. Republicans are largely convinced that "sanctity of life" issues will spark renewed enthusiasm for conservative candidates in state-level elections.


This is a developing story. Check back for more details.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 years ago

It was a long time coming. A wrong has been corrected.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 years ago

Me thinks it is going to hurt the Republicans, and we all know, though it may not concern you, others on the 'right', are pretty concerned about taking back the House and Senate.

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    2 years ago

Me thinks not. Most people have trouble filling the gas tank and putting food on the table and they know the democrats are to blame.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 years ago

We know the Democrats ARE NOT TO BLAME.  

This is all on the alleged conservatives/lying hypocrite scum judges/alt-right

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 years ago
and they know the democrats are to blame.

Who told them that ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.3    2 years ago

Joe Biden

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 years ago

Sorry Vic, if the LYING WEASEL , Art of the Deal, and the STEAL, had actually been reelected, we would still be faced with the consequences that a Global Shutdown, "that is just like the flue", would cause to our economy, but, we would probably be arming Trump's besty, Putin and Russia, as opposed to the Ukraine, cause they weren't loyal to Trump, and produced no Hunter Biden evidence, and since Trumppys son in law, wonder boy Jared, got a 2 BILLION dollar deal with the Saudi's (No one seems sure for what for,but with his record, it wasn't for increasing their investment, as i would have to surmise Trump did do them some Serious favors in something to eventually slip out, cause Trump is just one extra ordinary  guy, who only hired the best and the brightest, while draining that swamp, to find them, so asz they could be sent to Prison, except for pardon, pardon, pardons, and pardons, but Trump can pardon no more, and he probably doesn't even like Grey Poupon, but hey, a Golden Shower can rinse that Poupon off of him, no ?    

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.5    2 years ago

Is there any article lefties don't try and play the Trump card?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.6    2 years ago

I know you 'righties' , do enjoy your news spoon fed, after the "proper' seasoning, but what History will show, to be probably the lowest point in ours, is that Trump N Cump, are so GUILTY of trying to undermine what our DAMN COUNTRY Was built upon, as in our free flowing leadership exchange and Election Process, and that to EVERY DAMN LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, should be of MAJOR CONCERN, as i sat and read how people comment on something they didn't even watch, cause the testimony of ones under oath, Hell, the live or recorded testimony alone, is so much more telling and revealing than some filtered interpretation with bias galore, but nothing to see here, the could not be WRONGER 'right', will exclaim.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.6    2 years ago

It's all they got

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.8    2 years ago

51 others

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.7    2 years ago

Nice diatribe but the question was "Is there any article lefties don't try and play the Trump card?" and all you did was talk about Trump in an article about Roe vs Wade.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.10    2 years ago

well, in my oh so humble opine, this has everything to do with Trump, and his appointees', as his Federalist found in just the 'right' side, time, said Fred, , till dead on arrival, that some never got to decorate with Garland , because of an obstructive GOP, that changes the rules they set for others, which enabled Trump some cover, to install on our Court ala Supreme, some, that some might label, possibly a little extreme, and in my opinion, the driving factor in this reevaluation of Laws in this nation, for when a third of our Supreme Justices were replaced by Trump, YOU, most certainly, cannot rule out that possibility, that Trump and the 'right' , again, got it wrong !

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.11    2 years ago

He's just deflecting as usual iggy.  

Plus deflection and denial.  EXTREME DENIAL.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.12    2 years ago
He's just deflecting as usual iggy. 

The seed is not about me.  Why are you dogging my heels?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.11    2 years ago

I am not a constitutional scholar.  The Supreme Court Justices were all vetted and deemed qualified by the Senate and other independent organizations.  For that reason I will defer to them even though I don't always agree with the decision.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 years ago

290194937_5831602496851373_3262356806387131697_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Nnjthdo6d4cAX80NkWv&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8SxwpA3-C5iqrugoOZvDUlh8BTKifvAWhvfGHTnIZeQw&oe=62C0EC12

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    2 years ago

Those lying hypocritical scumbags - Kavanaugh, Barret-Cohen, all the alleged conservatives who lied so they could eliminate abortion.  Lying hypocritcal scum!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 years ago

They had a duty to the Constitution. You know, the one that has no mention of a right of "privacy."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 years ago

The same Constitution that has no mention of a right to 'own' a gun. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @3.1.1    2 years ago

Did you forget the second amendment? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.4  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.2    2 years ago

No. I know how to READ and know that the word 'own' isn't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @3.1.3    2 years ago

So sleeveless or spaghetti straps...

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
3.1.6  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.4    2 years ago

Yea, same shit every time -  "It's not in the Constitution, It's a word game in the Bill of Rights."

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 years ago
They had a duty to the Constitution.

They lied under oath, pretty sure that's illegal. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.2    2 years ago

Did you forget the second amendment? 

Where in the 2nd does it mention guns? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @3.1.3    2 years ago
"bare arms".

LMAO! 

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
3.1.10  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.8    2 years ago

"Where in the 2nd does it mention guns?"

A gun is an arm as are a shovel and a bat.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.7    2 years ago

Document the lies, and while you are at it, explain why Biden's JD hasn't done anything about it!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  squiggy @3.1.10    2 years ago

when i wish for this right, i take off my long sleeved shirt, and my "guns" still, do not a militia make. For irregardless of how mant times one Militias' upon this star, i fail to see that direct line to guns, cause, what if they actually only legalized short sleeved shirts to differentiate the Caucasians, from the, excuse my pc incorrect terminology,, 'Skinz" 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @3.1.10    2 years ago
A gun is an arm as are a shovel and a bat.

So if guns are banned, then you can still bear arms... Excellent point, thanks for that. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
3.1.14  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.13    2 years ago

“So if guns are banned…”

… you will have infringed. You’re welcome.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.15  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  squiggy @3.1.6    2 years ago

agreed, simple english and the definitions of words , both then and now.

 I do see the word "keep" which is another word for posess and or own .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @3.1.8    2 years ago
Where in the 2nd does it mention guns?

where it mentions "arms " 

the definition of "arms " would include firearms .

If you think it does not , then please tell us what the term "a call to arms" is meant to mean .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.17  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @3.1.6    2 years ago

The seeder started the game this time. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.18  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @3.1.14    2 years ago

It seems that the fetish is mostly about guns since there's a shit ton of infringing going on for knives. There are SO few places where I can open carry my K Bar. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.19  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.1    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.7    2 years ago

So did Kagan (About the PPACA) and Soto-Mayor (over the Firemen testing). Don't see any leftists screaming for their heads to be put on a silver platter.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.16    2 years ago
the definition of "arms " would include firearms . If you think it does not , then please tell us what the term "a call to arms" is meant to mean .

You completely missed the point. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.23  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.20    2 years ago

So did Kagan (About the PPACA) and Soto-Mayor (over the Firemen testing). Don't see any leftists screaming for their heads to be put on a silver platter.

So impeach them all, start over. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.24  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @3.1.22    2 years ago

dont think i did .

 but then again you likely think i vote against my own self interests too .

 problem is i do vote in my interest and what likely ticks you off is i vote against what your interests are 

i have no obligation to vote in your interest , especially if i am in disagreement with them .

 so you can go toss your word salad somewhere else , we will see if we can find someone to toss crayons and inert grenades at you , and make sure if you go out in public that they hide the big pink mints in the mens room from you so you dont spoil your supper  .

(lifts a cheek and lets one sneak )

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 years ago
Those lying hypocritical scumbags - Kavanaugh, Barret-Cohen, all the alleged conservatives who lied so they could eliminate abortion.

What did they lie about............oh, and it's Coney-Barrett...............

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 years ago

You mean Coney-Barrett has a right to be called her correct name?

I thought that was only reserved for the favored few.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 years ago
What did they lie about

I was not paying much attention to their confirmation hearings, and most, as skilled in matters of legal speak terminology used daily in our Judicial System (Also called Ambiguity in answers to questions posed), would be able to not be pinned down on opinion on standing issues, but did they hint of their thoughts on the matter?

For the vetting process alone takes these things into consideration before presented to A member of Congress to recommend to the POTUS,. Believe it's the Federalist Society, and only far 'Right" are ever recommended by this Federalist Society, and to me, a quite bass ackwards society at that.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 years ago

Lying hypocritical bitch however her name is spelled - pronounced - put together

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    2 years ago

What, again, did they lie about?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.2    2 years ago

They lied and said it was settled law.

Like I said, lying hypocritical scum.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.4    2 years ago

They're still trying to figure that out.  The memo hasn't been published.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    2 years ago

Kavanaugh’s Unsettling Use of ‘Settled Law’

The Supreme Court nominee’s judicial record suggests he means only that   Roe v. Wade   hasn’t yet been overturned, not that it can’t be.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    2 years ago

He's a lying and hypocritical scumbag plus a whiny little bitch!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.2.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.8    2 years ago

You  give 'em hell Tess!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.8    2 years ago
hypocritical scumbag plus

How many times do you think you have to say that before people actually believe the lie?

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
3.2.12  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.8    2 years ago

“…lying and hypocritical scumbag plus a whiny little bitch!“ 

Can you be be both at once?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @3.2.12    2 years ago

He obviously is.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.11    2 years ago
How many times do you think you have to say that before people actually believe the lie?

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," - Samuel Alito in recent draft opinion

"Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed." - Samuel Alito in his confirmation hearings

Gorsuch now votes to overturn Roe.

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." - Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings

Kavanaugh now votes to overturn Roe.

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." "Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system." - Kavanugh during his confirmation hearings

Amy Coney Barrett now votes to overturn Roe.

"Judges can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world," - Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked if Barrett considered Roe to be a "super-precedent" "defined as "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled." - Amy Coney Barrett

Chief Justice John Roberts now votes to overturn Roe.

During his confirmation he was asked what it would take for the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, "like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments."

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness," - Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation

If that's not a record of lying hypocrisy I don't know what is.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2.15  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    2 years ago

Of course they lied. The republicans don't care though as long as they get what they want.

I hope the dumbass Susan Collins has to feel shame the rest of her life.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    2 years ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    2 years ago

Thanks for providing that which i sought, as i stated, i was not paying attention during those hearings, i couldn't afford it.

All that stood out to me, was any that the Federalist reccommended, were to me, unacceptible, but my opine does not a link create, possibly, a patty

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.2.18  Dulay  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.17    2 years ago

Another hypocrisy is conservatives whining about a 'liberal litmus test' for judges. Trump stated flat out that he would nominate Justices that would overturn Roe and, in all too many cases, conservative voters put overturning Roe on the top of their hit list. So, Trump fulfilled his promise, in at least this case and became the first to achieve the goal of revoking a right from Americans. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 years ago

They didn't lie.

By all means, provide a link to any of them saying I will not overturn Roe. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3    2 years ago

Of course they lied.  That's what the alleged conservatives/lying hypocritcal scum republican judges lying scum do.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 years ago
Of course they lied. 

Cool. You should be able to provide a link of any of those justices (even the one's whose names you don't know) saying "I will never overturn Roe."

So prove it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.2    2 years ago

I didn't remember her name but I didn't feel like looking it up - who cares what her fucking name is or if I forgot what it is - she's still a lying hypocritical bitch.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    2 years ago
's still a lying hypocritical bitch.

Yet you can't prove it.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    2 years ago

Damn, that's a round about way to say "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.4    2 years ago

See 3.3.3

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.3.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.7    2 years ago

Well what the hell would I do if I didn't have you dogging my heels and letting me know that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.5    2 years ago

That's every comment/post YOU make JRNC

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.7    2 years ago

That's 'you're' and just what the fuck am I supposed to learn from him?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.4    2 years ago
"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," - Samuel Alito in recent draft opinion

"Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed." - Samuel Alito in his confirmation hearings

Gorsuch now votes to overturn Roe.

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." - Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings

Kavanaugh now votes to overturn Roe.

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." "Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system." - Kavanugh during his confirmation hearings

Amy Coney Barrett now votes to overturn Roe.

"Judges can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world," - Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked if Barrett considered Roe to be a "super-precedent" "defined as "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled." - Amy Coney Barrett

Chief Justice John Roberts now votes to overturn Roe.

During his confirmation he was asked what it would take for the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, "like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments."

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness," - Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation

If that's not a record of lying hypocrisy I don't know what is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.11    2 years ago

Thank you for making my case.  

that's not a record of lying hypocrisy I don't know what is

Then you don't know what the words mean. They never promised not to overturn Roe and your quotes prove it. 

If you think simply confirming that Roe was in fact decided by the Court and reaffirmed is somehow a promise to not overturn it, you really, really  don't understand the English language. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.3.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.12    2 years ago
They never promised not to overturn Roe and your quotes prove it.

That's like if you asked a prospective employee whether they would steal from the company if you hired them and they replied saying "Stealing is illegal. A good employee would never steal from the company. I want to assure you I will be a good employee." then when they are caught stealing on their first day at work they say "Hey, I never promised I wouldn't steal...".

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 years ago

At least they know what a woman is

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.4    2 years ago

Do you?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.4.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.1    2 years ago

Yep, women has been defined for years and years.  Do you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.4.2    2 years ago

I'm not the one who said such dumb shit.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.4.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.3    2 years ago
I'm not the one who said such dumb shit. 
No, but your future Supreme Court Justice did. 
Are you talking about this specific dumb shit or dumb shit in general?
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.4.4    2 years ago
At least they know what a woman is

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.4.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.5    2 years ago

and?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.4.6    2 years ago
"At least they know what a woman is"

Your stupid dumb shit comment as in 3.4.3

Stop deflecting.  I know it's all you have.  You never provide anything of value except to dog my heels like DOTW

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.4.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.7    2 years ago
except to dog my heels

You think a bit too highly of yourself.  But I will stop responding to your idiocy and deflection for a while, I just finished lunch and don't want anymore of yours.

But just remember it is you that started responding to my comment above and in several other instances.  You dogging my heels?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.9  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.4    2 years ago

Not really. There are still a bunch of the morons saying the ruling is an assault on women and "birthing people".

Can't get any more stupid than that.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4  Snuffy    2 years ago

I sure hope that the US Marshals Service has beefed up security around the homes of the justices.  I believe it's gonna be a crazy summer.  IMO the feds better start enforcing the laws.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @4    2 years ago

This is what our great Supreme Court now looks like:

FWBm8lbXEAAprTb?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 years ago

I'm more concerned with their homes, those are not so easily fenced off.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    2 years ago

I agree. We have all seen what the radical left is capable of.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 years ago

Cause (God) knows, the "right' would never RIOT !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.3    2 years ago

The right got punished for their riot.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    2 years ago
I'm more concerned with their homes, those are not so easily fenced off. 

As the Kavanaugh attempt demonstrates, the risk of violence directed at the justices  has never been higher. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    2 years ago

When?  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
4.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.3    2 years ago

Not nearly as much as the left. The difference is the left gets away with it and the right pays through the nose. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    2 years ago

For those that were held in pre-trial and/or found guilty and sentenced, now, others in the future.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    2 years ago

"I'm more concerned with their homes, those are not so easily fenced off." 

Gee, if you're so concerned, Why don't you head on out and guard them then snuffy?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.8    2 years ago

Are you implying that rioters on the left that committed federal crimes were not held and prosecuted? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 years ago

So what? It's looked like that for over a month Vic. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
4.1.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    2 years ago

I doubt that the conservative justices and their families have been able to live in their homes for several weeks. Too many loony people illegally "protesting" and threatening them. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @4.1.10    2 years ago

No, not at all.  I just tried to answer her question.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.10    2 years ago

"Are you implying that rioters on the left that committed federal crimes were not held and prosecuted?"

Yes, he is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.14    2 years ago
Yes, he is.

No you asked a simple question and I replied with a simple, accurate answer.  Any inference is on you.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.12    2 years ago

When their 'inconvenience' gets anywhere near what the Trump loyalists did to Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, get back to me. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    2 years ago

Unbelieveable - those freaking thugs.  I was watching their testimony on the 1/6 hearings.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.12    2 years ago

Show us the protesters and those threatening them outside of that one looney who said he wanted to assassinate whiny little bitch Kavanaugh?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
4.1.19  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    2 years ago
When their 'inconvenience' gets anywhere near what the Trump loyalists did to Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, get back to me. 

Their 'inconvenience' included an attempted assassination of a sitting SCOTUS justice that Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, and Garland never specifically condemned. Next.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4    2 years ago

Well, that would entail them arresting EVERYONE 'parading and/or picketing' outside of the SCOTUS today. 

I predict few if any arrests will be made by the US Marshalls OR the SC police. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @4.2    2 years ago

From the photos in the WPost today, the two groups outside look surprisingly small.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.2.1    2 years ago

The statute that conservatives have been posting ad nauseam has NO minimum number. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 years ago

"Man, everyone else just crying with joy today? I can't stop. I'm so thankful to so many people. Praise God. And let's GO! Protect women and children and create a culture of life!"...Mollie Hemingway

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    2 years ago

What a phony bitch she is!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    2 years ago

Oh, well if Mollie Hemingway is happy, it's all good. /s

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.2    2 years ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    2 years ago
everyone else just crying with joy today?

Clearly she's delusional. The vast majority of Americans supported Roe and want safe and legal access to abortion. Around 37% of Americans who are clearly dumb fuck religious bigots believe they should have the right to insert themselves between a woman and her doctor when in making health decisions. This ruling by the conservative religious bigots on the court is disgusting and they should be shamed of themselves. Abortion will not stop, they'll just go back to the ally's where more born, living breathing women's health will be put at risk all to save some fertilized eggs or kidney bean sized zygotes. The harm to women from this deplorable decision will be immeasurable. And the odds that religious conservatives will step up and adopt all those unwanted pregnancies is absolutely fucking zero because they've proven they don't give a fuck about humans once they're born.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3    2 years ago

They did NOT rule that abortion was illegal....FFS. One can still get one. It's up to the states to decide what they want. Some may go stupid overboard with some dumb shit but others won't be that assholish. California and New York already are on the record for "yea" for abortions.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.3.2  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.1    2 years ago

If a state makes it illegal, it is illegal in that state. What is being overboard is ignoring that fact.

If you think the anti abortion people have not had a goal in mind this whole time of making it illegal, that is not opening ones eyes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.1    2 years ago
They did NOT rule that abortion was illegal..

THAT is the real problem, people just don't bother to even TRY to comprehend SCOTUS rulings.

Of course abortion is not illegal in the US.

In some states, it will be, in others, legal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.3.2    2 years ago

Unfuckingreal that some state that they're not making abortion illegal.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.3.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.3    2 years ago

Yep even though they ruled that the states should have the say and feds should stay out of it. They just don't understand is correct. SCotUS doesn't make laws, they interpret laws and RvW was never a law. It was deemed a right. Congress makes the laws and they lost when they tried. An Manchin, once again, was the swing vote.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
5.3.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.3    2 years ago
In some states, it will be, in others, legal.

It's legal in Washington, in fact the State's attorney very proudly has stated that they have a team of 20 attorney's dedicated to the specific task of making Washington a "Sanctuary" state for abortion... Evidently, they believe a lot of women will be coming here to get one or the means to have one..

So they are crafting laws to blanket protect the in state providers from criminal or civil liability in other states if they provide such services to out of state visitors... They are going so far as to remove the govenuer's discretion in approving extradition of providers if they are charged by another state for violation of that states abortion laws... (talk about over the top paranoia)

Of course the current govenuer would never approve of such extraditions, but they are angling towards that such a liberal govenuer may not occupy the govenuer's mansion in the future, so they are wanting to remove a future governuer's discretion in such cases...

They are so out of touch with the citizenry it is incredible...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.6    2 years ago
fact the State's attorney very proudly has stated that they have a team of 20 attorney's dedicated to the specific task of making Washington a "Sanctuary" state for abortion

It's interesting how eager some states and corporations are for abortions.  So much for the "safe, legal and rare" mantra of a few years ago.

Now corporations, who won't cover out of pocket costs for births, are fighting among themselves to see who can pay the most for employees to travel for out of state abortions.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.3.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.3    2 years ago

Of course they don't. It just does not fit their narratives.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6  Right Down the Center    2 years ago

Thank God for the Supreme court.

The war on unborn children took a hit today and will let the states decide for themselves.

Now we get to hear the people that promote men competing against women in sports talk about the war on women.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 years ago

Amazing, the similarities that Abortion Rights and Gun Rights have, accept the GOP can't seem to make up it's mind...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1    2 years ago

Oh you've been listening to Pelosi.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1    2 years ago
similarities that Abortion Rights and Gun Rights have

Not really, only if you drink the cool aid Nancy and a few others are pouring.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.2    2 years ago

 Yes, as a RDTC constant Trump Defender, we are sure you know your Kool Aides.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.3    2 years ago
RDTC constant Trump Defen

Nice deflection attempt. I knew Trump would get into the conversation sooner rather than later.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.4    2 years ago

102822257_2956540807774964_2584149733221558541_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=5uh_yYUA4V0AX_XnIGi&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_W9KQ7B1hh9kx_-WEmZjI11p9Swm5mZAEooaapRdVPMQ&oe=62DB0E57

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.5    2 years ago

Ah, more immature Trump deflection attempts.  Having trouble staying on topic?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.4    2 years ago
I knew Trump would get into the conversation sooner rather than later.

Yea, cause the guy that pushed through so many Far 'right' Judicial vacancies from the bass ackwards Federalist society recs, and then the Hippo critical Gang decided to change the rules on when, and even whether, a vote would be taken on these deciders of so much, our Supreme Court, that Trump and the GOP got 3 newer Justices, but, yea, WTH would Trump have to do with any of this....

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    2 years ago
"I knew Trump would get into the conversation sooner rather than later."
"Yea, cause the guy that pushed through so many Far 'right' Judicial vacancies from the bass ackwards Federalist society recs, and then the Hippo critical Gang decided to change the rules on when, and even whether, a vote would be taken on these deciders of so much, our Supreme Court, that Trump and the GOP got 3 newer Justices, but, yea, WTH would Trump have to do with any of this...."

That's what you get with the projection, deflection, denial bunch.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    2 years ago
ea, cause the guy that pushed through so many Far 'right' Judicial vacancies from the bass ackwards Federalist society recs, and then the Hippo critical Gang decided to change the rules on when, and even whether, a vote would be taken on these deciders of so much, our Supreme Court, that Trump and the GOP got 3 newer Justices, but, yea, WTH would Trump have to do with any of this....

Wow. All of Trump's nominees on the Court were also rated "well qualified" by the ABA. 

Since you don't seem to care for the Federalist Society's recommendations, how about the ABA's?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  arkpdx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    2 years ago

Better than a justice that was nominated because of her gender and race rather than for her judicial qualifications. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    2 years ago

never really listened to ABA,  i'm more a heavy rocker

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.12    2 years ago
never really listened to ABA,

Obviously.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.5    2 years ago

Since you like pictures to convey a point even ones that have nothing to do with the post:

290228825_1014365519271592_903134324433369105_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=GVCsaJRNJQMAX_dK31k&_nc_oc=AQkDae8BYj0Gie_MJhy3hdNxPHhyYMn9mfkysdHgiUlL6zeOIM8zMwilkvuhYugB5fk&_nc_ht=scontent-bos5-1.xx&oh=00_AT8DjXJwUjfB5eOUyx12eQoEA4NZgOSLkZSu1bSexnrylQ&oe=62BB4ABD

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    2 years ago
Yea, cause the guy that pushed through so many Far 'right' Judicial vacancies

Wasn't it Saint Obama that said "elections have consequences"?  We are sure learning that lesson with Joe "the brain dead".

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.16  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.12    2 years ago
never really listened to ABA,  i'm more a heavy rocker

Then the age old question...The Who or The Stones?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.16    2 years ago

only can i divulge, on the SABBATH, but am fine with both you chose, but as mentioned, i am that whitch goes too heavy to float, like a Zeppelin of Lead, to the Corrosion of Conformity ( my alltime favorite band name) that it appears too many have found the chemical makeup of, and i feel the NEED for now, a chemical reaction, as i go forth, to make Happy Hour, Mellon Collie again, for any i might cross paths with, if i don't get them tangled in my spork

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.6    2 years ago

Standard MO and deflection when some people have nothing realistic to offer.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 years ago

Deflection.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @6.2    2 years ago

I agree they will try to deflect this with war on women claims and probably lob a few comments about the ruling on NY gun for good measure.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.1    2 years ago
"Now we get to hear the people that promote men competing against women in sports talk about the war on women."

DEFLECTION

I know that's all you have, on top of projection and denial.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    2 years ago

Did you ever notice that the people that constantly accuse others of deflection, projection and denial rarely have anything to say that actually adds to the discussion?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.3    2 years ago

Yes I see that from you constantly.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    2 years ago

Now that is a first rate deflection attempt that was totally predictable.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.1    2 years ago
probably lob a few comments about the ruling on NY gun for good measure.

Already have.................see #10 below............

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.5    2 years ago

Not to mention Pee Wee Hermanesque LOL

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.6    2 years ago

Just trying to fully understand where the 'right' is coming from, cause i don't see them as consistent, unless referring to, consistently WRONG.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.6    2 years ago

They are so predictable you really have no need to read their responses to know exactly what they are going to say.......When they actually talk about the topic and don't deflect or invoke their Trump rule.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.9    2 years ago
They are so predictable you really have no need to read their responses to know exactly what they are going to say.......

Do you have ESPN2, cause i never know what im gonna stereotypecast out next, but, i'm glad you do.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.2.11  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @6.2.11    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7  Sean Treacy    2 years ago

It took almost 50 years, but a decision that did about as  much damage to this country as any since it's ideological forebear Dred Scott is finally gone.  Since it was handed down, even liberal scholars recognized it had no legal basis and was just the Court legislating it's personal morality into law. As Professor Ely, an abortion advocate, wrote at the time:

"It is, nevertheless, a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court--it won't;  and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress, or what the evidence suggests is society's--it doesn't. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Instead of leaving the states to let their voters decide the laws they want to live under, the Court stepped in and stopped the process whereby many states were updating abortion laws and removed the issue from any democratic solutions. So it festered. Corrupted the Senate, politicized the Court and ruined its nomination procedures.  It led to abortion becoming one of the most polarizing issues in a hyper polarized country. 

The amount of damage Roe did to our institutions of government is incalculable. 

It's a pity the Casey court didn't do this thirty years ago. The plurality that wrote the decision knew it was bad law but justified keeping it because to admit it was bad law would somehow undermine the court.  Predictably, reinforcing bad law just made the situation  worse, and it took another thirty years of havoc to finally overturn it. So now the boil is finally lanced in a country that is even more polarized than in was 30 years ago, in part because the Court was too proud in to admit it made a mistake. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
8  charger 383    2 years ago

I disagree with this decision.  Rights were taken away and we will have more unwanted children and the problems and costs they will bring

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 years ago

See post 12 below. It isn't illegal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    2 years ago

Why should anyone read such ignorance?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
8.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    2 years ago
Why should anyone read such ignorance?

Because it is not ignorant and someone might actually learn something heaven forbid.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    2 years ago

Education  and the reason panties don't need to be in full wadded mode......................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @8.1.2    2 years ago

There is nothing to learn from him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.4    2 years ago

It's not my panties that are wadded up my butt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
8.1.7  charger 383  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    2 years ago

It makes things difficult, expensive and inconvenient, that is bad 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    2 years ago

Your musings on this and a couple other subjects belie that opinion.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
8.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.4    2 years ago

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
8.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.5    2 years ago
There is nothing to learn from him.

Of course not.  Someone that believes they know everything can never hope to learn anything else.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.7    2 years ago

Let's see how this plays out. I don't see full abolition of abortion. There will be some restrictions without a doubt but we shall see just how the states react..............and we need to

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.11    2 years ago

an actual agreement, for we know not all the details, but, i am certain of something, and that would be MORE DIVISIVENESS in the Country, something none of US need.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    2 years ago

Well I read your comments for their comedic value

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.8    2 years ago

Again, see 8.1.6

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    2 years ago

It’s commando day Friday?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.1.18  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.7    2 years ago
It makes things difficult, expensive and inconvenient

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @8.1.10    2 years ago

Nothing to learn from deniers, deflectors and projectors like Nerm and the majority on these 'articles'.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.7    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 years ago

What right was taken away? There was never and should never be a right to kill unborn human beings. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
8.2.1  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @8.2    2 years ago

They were never really alive, so they were not killed

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8.2.1    2 years ago

They most certainly were and are alive

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.3  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.2    2 years ago

So are hair follicles. Did you murder the hair in your comb? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.5  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @8.2.3    2 years ago

That is about the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time. [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.6  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.5    2 years ago
That is about the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time.

I suggest you re-read some of your own comments, They should motivate you to alter that list. 

I am not surprised it came from a leftie though.

Not surprised that you can't refute my comment so you dismiss it with pure partisan hyperbolic bullshit. 

No and hair follicles do not become human babies either. 

You claimed they were 'alive', so are hair follicles. So are sperm. Every sperm is sacred right? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.2.6    2 years ago
You claimed they were 'alive', so are hair follicles.

Did you mean hair and not the follicle?  Hair follicles are the tunnel in the skin in which the hair grows.  Follicles are alive.  

Every sperm is sacred right? 

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

Depends on the culture.  In China, gemstones were said to be drops of divine semen that had hardened after fertilizing the earth. Jade was the dried semen of celestial dragons. 

In Chi Kung and other forms of Chinese medicine, "jing" is sexual energy, which can also denote "essence" or "spirit." , Chi Kung followers see male masturbation  as a  kind of energy suicide. 

Romans saw orchids as the result of leftover  semen of copulating satyrs.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.7    2 years ago
Did you mean hair and not the follicle? 

Read the thread please. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.2.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.2.8    2 years ago

Yes, a hairy one.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @8.2.6    2 years ago
Not surprised that you can't refute my comment 

Why should I waste my time to try and refute a stupid comment like that?

Every sperm is sacred right? 

Nope there is not now nor has there ever been a sperm that developed in to a human being on its own. If you know of one who has please cite it. The same goes for human ova. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.11  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.10    2 years ago
Why should I waste my time to try and refute a stupid comment like that?

Why not? You've been wasting your time deflecting. 

Nope there is not now nor has there ever been a sperm that developed in to a human being on its own. If you know of one who has please cite it. The same goes for human ova. 

AGAIN, you claimed they were 'alive', so are hair follicles. So are sperm. So are ova for that matter. 

Oh, and BTFW, 2/3rds of the exalted 'fertilized ova' do NOT result in a LIVE birth. Most don't even make it for 30 days.

Once born ALIVE, the US infant mortality rate is 50th and significantly higher than most developed countries.

How about y'all work on THAT issue for once? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.10    2 years ago
is not now nor has there ever been a sperm that developed in to a human being on its own

Biology isn't their strong suit. They can't tell the difference between a hair and a human.  

Their teachers would be embarrassed. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @8.2.11    2 years ago
so are hair follicles

follicles aren't alive, alive, oh.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.13    2 years ago

Only cockles and mussels. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.2.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.14    2 years ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.16  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @8.2.11    2 years ago
Oh, and BTFW, 2/3rds of the exalted 'fertilized ova' do NOT result in a LIVE birth. Most don't even make it for 30 days.

So that makes it OK to kill the others that could result in a live birth?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.17  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @8.2.11    2 years ago
Why not? You've been wasting your time deflecting 

I am not the one that is grieving, moaning and crying over the death of a hair follicle. That would be you. Personally I don't care

 
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.18  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.16    2 years ago

Save your strawman bullshit for someone who will take the bait. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.19  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.17    2 years ago
I am not the one that is grieving, moaning and crying over the death of a hair follicle. That would be you.

More strawman bullshit. 

Personally I don't care

When why do you keep posting bullshit. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.20  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @8.2.19    2 years ago

I don't post bullshit. Just because you are wallowing in it does not mean I am or anyone else is giving it to you.

I also did not write any of of the BS you wrote like dead follicles or unused sperm or inviable ova. You came up with those deflections all bt yourself

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
8.2.21  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.2    2 years ago

Did not take a breath out in the open on their own and still plugged into someone else's power supply

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
8.2.22  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8.2.21    2 years ago

So what? It is still alive in the womb until the abortionist kills it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.23  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @8.2.20    2 years ago
I don't post bullshit.

Then you should have no problem block quoting where you claim I was 'grieving, moaning and crying over the death of a hair follicle.'

Since you CAN'T, your comment is strawman bullshit. 

I also did not write any of of the BS you wrote like dead follicles or unused sperm or inviable ova. You came up with those deflections all bt yourself

More bullshit. 

I commented about LIVE hair follicles, sperm and ova. YOU added the 'dead, unused and inviable' in a sad attempt to bolster your bullshit.

You failed. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
9  charger 383    2 years ago

This hurts gun owners' rights because unwanted children are more likely to do bad things with guns because they were not raised right

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @9    2 years ago

We can't hurt the gun owner's rights!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10  Tessylo    2 years ago

1 .xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289228390_5809813875696902_5001632219166182197_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=104&ccb= 1 -7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=kKK9YfqMIMgAX9qV4Aa&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3- 1 .xx&oh=00_AT-T7gtCrOTm46J0j 1 mMntxhogB3PeOzF4yE3Bb25IZsoQ&oe=62BB2B74" >

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
10.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 years ago

Must be a democrat run city.  People are getting used to it in them.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
10.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 years ago

Is his right leg a prosthetic, it’s much thinner than the left?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
10.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 years ago

You said a mouthful. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 years ago

I'd really like to click on your "link", but I never click on that which is unrecognizable. Can you post a reliable link that translates those letters, numbers, symbols, and punctuation marks? Thanks! 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
12  Nerm_L    2 years ago

Looks like state politics has become important again.  I've not read the final decision but the draft appeared to be an argument that regulating abortion was not within the Constitutional authority of the Federal government.  Alito's draft arguments actually strengthened the Constitution by enforcing a check on the Federal government.  IMO the decision is an affirmation of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

SCOTUS hasn't banned abortion.  SCOTUS as determined that the Federal government doesn't have authority to regulate abortion.  State government has become much more important in our representative democracy.  Wasn't that the original intent of the Constitution?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @12    2 years ago

I'm a tad confused (more like confusing), but were you possibly one from yesterday all in favor of the NY gun conceal ruling, forgive me if i am mistaken. Cause either the States have the Power, or the Fed does, and i'm not well read on either issue, but, i feel making it more difficult for a woman to choose what happens with HER body, is just , how does that saying go, the first step down that slippery slope, cause the ones wishing for more unwanted children to be brought into this world, never seem to want anything to do with these children, after the birth part. Also, I am a legal gun owner, and would not be Happy, at ALL, if someone attempted to remove them, but i have not a problem with some sort of Laws, to stop the crazy's, from obtaining weapons, that were designed with a specific intention. Something NEEDS to be addressed on the mass murdering spree on this countries innocent youth, i just don't quite get how, there is not consistency from the 'right'.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1    2 years ago

[removed, using same cartoon again in same article]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
12.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1    2 years ago
I'm a tad confused (more like confusing), but were you possibly one from yesterday all in favor of the NY gun conceal ruling, forgive me if i am mistaken.

I haven't commented on the SCOTUS decision in the concealed/carry case.  But since you brought it up, that SCOTUS decision reaffirms that the Constitution does matter.  States cannot infringe upon the Constitution using arbitrary requirements intended to restrict rights.  The SCOTUS decision did not prevent states from regulating concealed/carry.  NY can still require a more stringent background check, licensing, and liability responsibility.  Again that's an affirmation of the 10th Amendment that states are still required to conform to the Constitution.

Everyone needs to understand what a conservative (or originalist) SCOTUS really means.  SCOTUS has shifted toward enforcing checks on the Federal government and affirming the 10th Amendment.  That's why politicians inside the beltway are alarmed; they are being required to share power with state governments.

Cause either the States have the Power, or the Fed does, and i'm not well read on either issue, but, i feel making it more difficult for a woman to choose what happens with HER body, is just , how does that saying go, the first step down that slippery slope, cause the ones wishing for more unwanted children to be brought into this world, never seem to want anything to do with these children, after the birth part.

SCOTUS has affirmed that states have the power; the Federal government does not have the power.  All the emotive rending of clothes over women's rights needs to be directed toward statehouses rather than toward an authoritarian central government.

Also, I am a legal gun owner, and would not be Happy, at ALL, if someone attempted to remove them, but i have not a problem with some sort of Laws, to stop the crazy's, from obtaining weapons, that were designed with a specific intention. Something NEEDS to be addressed on the mass murdering spree on this countries innocent youth, i just don't quite get how, there is not consistency from the 'right'.  

The 10th Amendment allows states the right to do just that.  State government is just as important as the Federal government.  In some instances a state governor has more power than does the President.  This more conservative SCOTUS is forcing the country to recognize the original intent of the Constitution.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
12.1.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.1    2 years ago

Better the second time?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13  devangelical    2 years ago

with almost 70% of americans favoring pro-choice, I find it very interesting that the rwnj gov't overreach chorus is now so silent. I'm liking the statistical odds of the near future though. a vastly divided public, a SCOTUS decision that takes away individual freedom from half of america, and a christo-fascist minority that wants to rule by decree. gee, I wonder how this will affect property insurance rates for anti-choice institutions in the short term, given our country's historical distaste for oppression in other locales by radical religious organizations.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @13    2 years ago
d a christo-fascist minority that wants to rule by decree.

Do you understand how our government works?  It's actually the opposite. Instead of Roe, which was literally a rule by decree,  voters are now free to live by the rules they want to live by. States can still legalize everything short of literal infanticide (just like they could yesterday).  If the people want legal abortion, they can still have it.  Just no longer by decree. 

aste for oppression in other locales by radical religious organizations.

As you threaten terrorism, again.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1    2 years ago

I'm just speculating on the probability of the inevitable, but it will be me laughing hysterically when the rats arrive and the crows descend to feast on the theocrats among the rubble.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @13.1.1    2 years ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
13.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @13.1.1    2 years ago

Have you previously had episodes of hysterical laughter?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @13.1.1    2 years ago
ughing hysterically when the rats arrive and the crows descend to feast on the theocrats among the rubble.

Yes, I know you enjoy the idea of killing Americans. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1.4    2 years ago

no worries. I don't consider christo-fascists americans. more like temporarily mobile compost.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @13.1.5    2 years ago

For sure. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1.6    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1.6    2 years ago

the combined costs of increased insurance rates, 8 foot fences with concertina wire installed, metal detectors at the entrances, on site explosive detection dogs, private armed security forces... tsk, tsk, tsk... that all sounds like it will cut pretty deep into the tax exempt profits of the GOP money laundering arm within their anti-choice institutions. not to mention the quadrupling birth rates of low income brown peoples in anti-choice states. I really don't think the rwnj xtian nationalists have thought this thru. /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @13.1.8    2 years ago

 ted costs of increased insurance rates, 8 foot fences with concertina wire installed, metal detectors at the entrances, on site explosive detection dogs, private armed security forces... tsk

Since you can't win at the ballot box, you will murder people.  

Thanks for letting us know where you stand. 

. not to mention the quadrupling birth rates of low income brown peoples

I agree that explains why white liberals are so anxious to keep abortion legal that they've been reduced to openly supporting  terrorism.  The racist, eugenic roots of PP have grown  true. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.10  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1.9    2 years ago
Since you can't win at the ballot box, you will murder people.

not me, I'm too old. it will be nostalgic watching it though, like the evening news in the 60's.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
13.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @13.1.10    2 years ago

LoL, good one devangelical.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
14  Hallux    2 years ago

Canada and Mexico will see a huge influx of medical tourism ... Kaching! 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
14.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @14    2 years ago

Only if it's cheaper...........it isn't illegal and won't be in all 50 states. At worst would be a total ban and I don't think that is gonna happen much of anywhere. At best the 15 week limit or some other time limit could be enacted.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
14.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.1    2 years ago

The problem i foresee, is since the majority that tend to have to choose, tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, which makes the 'tourism' cliche, a bit tasteless, but since i have not taste, from biting my damn tongue so often, it is going to be another hardship, placed on those already affluent, in hardships, that don't sail as well as , oh , what did i just come across, The Senate Retirement Bill, that somehow, yet again, benefits those with Money, the Most. But i digress, cause i can't livegress, a state could determione they only wished to have one office that provides these services in the entire state, and some states are far larger than others, but that one, DENIAL, is not going to help US as a Nation, as just further red meat, to divide, so as so much easier, to conquer. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
14.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.1    2 years ago
At worst would be a total ban and I don't think that is gonna happen much of anywhere. At best the 15 week limit or some other time limit could be enacted.

Which illustrates your ignorance of the issue. There are already 22 states with trigger law bans in place. All but one of them are either TOTAL bans or 6 week bans. That's is 'much of everywhere' in the continental US. 

The fact that women may not know they're pregnant for before 6 weeks AND the added travel time, that may as well be a TOTAL ban in those 22 states. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @14.1.2    2 years ago

"Which illustrates your ignorance of the issue. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif There are already 22 states with trigger law bans in place. All but one of them are either TOTAL bans or 6 week bans. That's is 'much of everywhere' in the continental US. 

The fact that women may not know they're pregnant for before 6 weeks AND the added travel time, that may as well be a TOTAL ban in those 22 states." 

TOTAL BANS OR SIX WEEK BANS.  Unfreakingreal.  Yet this ignorance is supported.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
14.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @14    2 years ago
Canada and Mexico will see a huge influx of medical tourism

California too expensive? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
14.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @14.2    2 years ago

Canada is closer to MI, ND, ID, WY and WI. 

You can do the geography for Mexico yourself. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
14.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @14    2 years ago

Good time to invest in Danco Labs and GenBioPro, manufacturer’s of mifepristone and misoprostol.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Hallux @14    2 years ago

maybe , maybe not .

 i think there is enough states that will keep abortion legal that the need to travel out of country wont be nessisary.

 any place that allows abortions right now and has it protected by state law will continue as usual .

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
15  TOM PA    2 years ago

256

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
15.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TOM PA @15    2 years ago

You must hate vaccination mandates, huh? 

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
15.1.1  TOM PA  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1    2 years ago

No.  But I do have a DNR card.  I'm not sure if it is still valid.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
15.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  TOM PA @15.1.1    2 years ago
No.

But I though bodily autonomy is an essential unconditional liberty? 

Peter Alex Harris won't be happy with you. 

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
15.1.3  TOM PA  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.2    2 years ago

See 15.4.2  

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
15.1.4  TOM PA  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.2    2 years ago

Then he must be really angry with the SCOTUS!  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
16  Jasper2529    2 years ago

Way to go, Maxine! Always encouraging violence and racism.

"You ain't seen nothing yet," Waters said from the steps of the court. "Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us. The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them. Women will be in control of their bodies. And if they think black women are intimidated or afraid, they got another thought coming." "Black women will be out in droves," she continued. "We will be out by the thousands, we will be out by the millions. We are going to make sure we fight by the right to control."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
16.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Jasper2529 @16    2 years ago

If women did a better job of controlling their bodies, abortion wouldn't be such an issue

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1    2 years ago

OH NO YOU DIDN'T

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1    2 years ago

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in a while.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
16.1.3  charger 383  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1    2 years ago

Takes two to tango

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
16.2  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @16    2 years ago

Tha's a false block quote. Try harder. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
16.2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @16.2    2 years ago
Tha's a false block quote. Try harder. 

You are incorrect. My block quote in comment 16 is clearly stated in the FNC source. Here it is ... again

The video is merely supplemental evidence that supports Waters' words.

As you said ... try harder .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
16.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @16.2.1    2 years ago
 You are incorrect. My block quote in comment 16 is clearly stated in the FNC source. Here it is ... again . 

AGAIN, false. From YOUR comment:

"Black women will be out in droves," she continued. "We will be out by the thousands, we will be out by the millions. We are going to make sure we fight by the right to control."

From YOUR link:

"Black women will be out in droves," she continued. "We will be out by the thousands, we will be out by the millions. We are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies."

So NOW, the question is WHY did you edit what you just claimed is an accurate block quote? To what end? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
16.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @16.2.2    2 years ago
So NOW, the question is WHY did you edit what you just claimed is an accurate block quote? To what end? 

I did not "edit" anything, Dulay. It's not my fault that NT didn't accept the entire quotation that I copied/pasted.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
16.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @16.2.3    2 years ago
I did not "edit" anything, Dulay. It's not my fault that NT didn't accept the entire quotation that I copied/pasted.

Now it's NT's fault? 

Interesting that you're trying to get me to believe that NT inserted a period and quotation mark after 'control' all by itself. I'm unaware of this handy dandy punctuation function you pretend that NT offers. 

Oh, and did NT force you to post the bullshit you did in 16.2.1 where you failed to admit that your block quote was NOT accurate? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
17  Snuffy    2 years ago

I wonder how things might have turned out had the Supreme Court never involved themselves in the case in the first place.  Would Congress had codified abortion?  Would the Right to Life coalition ever been created?  Would we just find ourselves in this partisan argument regardless.   Don't know..  but it's nuts listening to all the "experts" today who strictly argue from a partisan perspective.

Some experts say the political battle over abortion — which became a starkly partisan issue only beginning in the 1980s — was unavoidable, regardless of the legal reasoning in Roe.

Mary Ziegler, a Florida State law professor and author of several books on the abortion wars, said she is “skeptical that it would have made a difference” if the court had written a different and better opinion.

“This is not about the reasoning in Roe,” she said. “It is a fight over two fundamental human rights, and for many, there can be no compromise. Overruling Roe won’t satisfy the anti-abortion movement.” They want the court to recognize a “right to life” for the unborn child, she said.

Yet the sweep of Roe certainly fueled the political fight, and created the right-to-life movement that eventually found a home in the GOP.

“There was no Republican-Democrat divide on abortion during the 1970s,” said Neal Devins, a College of William & Mary law professor. “In a poll taken shortly before Roe was decided, 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats said the decision to have an abortion should be made by a woman and her physician.”

And the anti-abortion movement spawned by the ruling set upon one goal: overturning Roe.

“Roe was the catalyst for the Christian right to get engaged in politics,” said Amanda Hollis-Brusky, a politics professor at Pomona College in Claremont.

Ever since, “they have made an issue out of [abortion] and organized around it,” said Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor at UC Berkeley. “Very few people have read Roe. But abortion has become a very partisan issue.”

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
17.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @17    2 years ago

I think the states would have taken care of it, as they were starting to when Roe passed. In states where it was popular, legislatures had already loosened restricons.

Had Roe never been issued, I think most states would have ended up where most European countries did,  similar to the Mississippi law in Dobbs.  By taking the issue out of the democratic process, the parties coalesced around the extremes. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
18  Just Jim NC TttH    2 years ago

And now they are even blaming the dead..............and of course.........Trump

" T he Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade Friday resulted in meltdowns from many liberal journalists blaming former President Trump and the conservative justices. 

However, some in the liberal media actually suggested the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was partly responsible. Taking their grievances to social media, journalists and other media figures slammed the formerly revered liberal icon for not retiring sooner."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @18    2 years ago

No one is melting down.  We're calling them out for the lying hypocritical scum that they are and trumpturd enabled all this to happen.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
18.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @18.1    2 years ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
18.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @18.1    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
18.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @18.1.2    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
18.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Greg Jones @18.1.3    2 years ago

Gone are the days of the pro abortion crowd joyously celebrating abortion at any age or stage.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
18.2  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @18    2 years ago

Had RGB still been alive, it's not certain how she would have voted on this.  She was never a fan of Roe v Wade and called the ruling wrong several times.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
18.2.1  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @18.2    2 years ago

She was pro choice.

The seven to two judgment in  Roe v. Wade   declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in  Roe , to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey ? A less encompassing  Roe , one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.
 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
18.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @18.2.1    2 years ago

Yes she was pro choice but she repeatedly stated that Roe v Wade was bad law, that it was too far reaching and too sweeping.  Just being pro choice does not mean she would have blanketly voted to retain Roe v Wade.   Even your own comment shows that her believe was that Roe v Wade went too far and would have been better if it only struck down the Texas law it was heard on and not gone as far as it did.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
18.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @18.2.2    2 years ago
  Just being pro choice does not mean she would have blanketly voted to retain Roe v Wade

In her case it does. She always, always voted to expand abortion rights and never to curtail them.. She was fine with partial birth abortion.  It's unthinkable that she would ever have voted in support of any limit on abortion rights, even though she knew the foundation was wrong.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
18.2.4  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @18.2.2    2 years ago

Actually she was correct in a sense. They should have stopped at the Texas law and just said no, which was what it was about.

I am of the opinion that it is a medical decision and of no concern to anyone else and I don't know why it doesn't fall under a medical condition that is only between you and your doctor.

Thus I think some went the privacy root.

It is ridiculous to me to have a medical thing decided by the government.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
18.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @18.2.4    2 years ago

It is ridiculous to me to have a medical thing decided by the government.

If you have any sort of health insurance your medical decisions are decided by lawyers and accountants now.  You only have the illusion that the decision is between you and  your doctor but the reality is the doctor is constrained by the rules set forth by the insurance company.  Privacy in medical matters is an illusion in this country I'm afraid and has been for a very long time.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
18.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @18.2.5    2 years ago
If you have any sort of health insurance your medical decisions are decided by lawyers and accountants now.

Actually, the decision of what kind of health insurance you pay for is on you and you choose your coverage. You can even supplement your coverage if you are under a RW employer funded plan.

All too many states have prohibited insurance coverage for abortions, and it looks as though more will be added to that list. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
18.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @18    2 years ago
However, some in the liberal media actually suggested the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was partly responsible. Taking their grievances to social media, journalists and other media figures slammed the formerly revered liberal icon for not retiring sooner."

I think many dems have shown they have no problem eating their own.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
18.3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @18.3    2 years ago
some in the liberal media actually suggested the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was partly responsible.

The GOP and Trump took 8 days to bring RBG's replacement into position, to ram down the Dems throat, all while The Repuns refused to even entertain avote on Garland with over a year, yet what,couple blitzed monthsand the old white crowd, got their packed stacked quart, via no liters, 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
18.3.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @18.3.1    2 years ago

Waaaaah

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Senior Quiet
19  Colour Me Free    2 years ago

There are def some very upset people in commenting land today...  interestingly enough they are as pissed off at the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday as they are about the ruling today ..  many of which are the same people..

Do I agree with today's decision, not really - but all todays ruling truly does is push the decision making back to the states.  Gun people already know how that works ...... so welcome to state regulated whack a mole and buckle up, the ride is going to be bumpy in some states.  If the state you now reside in does not allow an abortion when you choose to have it, hopefully the state next door is laxer so you can buy your guns there .. err um get your abortion there.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
19.1  Ender  replied to  Colour Me Free @19    2 years ago
very upset people in commenting land today

Bad day to be a mod.  Haha

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Senior Quiet
19.1.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Ender @19.1    2 years ago

Def a good day to call in sick!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
19.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Colour Me Free @19.1.1    2 years ago
call in sick

After reading these comments, i thought , many, were calling/typing in sick, cause some posts, just plain and simply are.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Senior Quiet
19.1.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  igknorantzrulz @19.1.2    2 years ago

To each their own .. I chose to make a smartass remark simply because of the crazy talk I have been hearing and reading... things like:  this decision is an attack on democracy .. slavery will be legal again soon .. hell even the black caucus have called for Biden to declare a state of emergency over the decision, naïve me, I thought it was due to possible rioting...  but NO...

Abortion lives to fight another day, all the best legal minds in the nation are prob huddled together searching for a loophole in the decision as I type this.

'Our' rights and freedoms are fragile .. that is why gun owners fight so hard for theirs, it comes down to the individual states regulations / restrictions / laws though as to what ones rights are.  Many do not think firearms should be legal and are waiting to rejoice 'when' the second gets over turned .. and it will eventually happen.  Freedom of speech is being challenged on the regular .. attempting to legislate what hate speech is... the right to free speech will be amended at some point .. hope neither amendment goes down in my lifetime though ... 

As I said above, I do not have a dog in this fight, my friends tell me if I had daughters I would be more passionate.  I support a women's right to choose and disagree with what some states are choosing to do when it comes to regulation.  I think there should at least be a standard across the board.  I am angered that Montana's new law does not provide for rape and incest .. 

Peace

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
20  Sean Treacy    2 years ago

Businesses in Washington DC are boarding up their windows to protect against "mostly peaceful" rioting tonight. 

I will credit Biden for saying to "k eep all protests peaceful. Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. No intimidation. Violence is never acceptable."

Given his silence over the Kavanaugh assassination attempt, that's more than I expected from him. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
21  Buzz of the Orient    2 years ago

When I watched the news here at midnight last night I couldn't believe seeing so many women REJOICING that decision.  Maybe they'd be even happier if they were chained to their beds. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
21.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @21    2 years ago

That's right Buzz. Women can't think for themselves. Glad you are here to tell them how they should think and act..

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
21.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @21.1    2 years ago

Did I tell them how they should think and act?  No, notwithstanding your putting words in my mouth I did not, but merely graphically voiced my disappointment in their personal opinions of their own self-interest.  Maybe how they vote in November will be a better indication.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
21.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @21.1.1    2 years ago

Maybe. But women are individuals and vote for all sorts of reasons.  They aren't controlled by their gender or any single issue. They are actually fully developed humans capable of prioritizing what they perceive to be most important to them and voting accordingly. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
21.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @21.1.1    2 years ago

Buzz,

I know you are too smart to be fooled into thinking that this is a single issue. It is not. It dictates not only a women's right to her body but also her beliefs as a person. It is also opening a whole can of worms from birth control to gay marriage, as Clarence Thomas just said.

So, only a fool would think that this is a single issue, because it is not. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
21.1.4  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1.3    2 years ago

It is not a single issue and puts many rights in question. It is a loss of privacy and loss of individual control.

Also Do not understand that men do not see abortion a good thing for them. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
21.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1.3    2 years ago

I think you misunderstand buzz on this one. 

Seems to me he is saying that he is amazed to see so many women (definitely a minority) praising the decision to put them back into the kitchen. He is disappointed in that, as am I. 

I don't think he is saying it is a single issue, or anything. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
22  Right Down the Center    2 years ago

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
23  Thrawn 31    2 years ago

Alright, well based on dipshit Thomas' logic I think we should be able to make interracial marriage illegal, or at least put his marriage up to a popular vote right?  I mean, it is not actually mentioned, or even implied in the Constitution, and frankly I think a majority of the founders would have been disgusted with the idea of a white woman marrying a piece of property or second class citizen (at best). I mean we are going straight up originalist here yeah? Basing our current rights upon what people thought 200+ years ago? 

Thomas you are a fucking idiot. 

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
Vic Eldred
Drinker of the Wry
Snuffy
Krishna


82 visitors