They also support keeping cops and soldiers cool and comfortable while they beat the shit out of those women protesting to keep them.
RIP, Roe vs. Wade.
- Thread starter rideit
- Start date
Hard to play both sides and come out clean. Just another sign of the upcoming end times for America.
If you were relying on patagonia to be a leader or even a belleweather, you were destined for disappointment
Lots of good community based movements coming out of this. Help and progress will be on the ground, not in the brains of capitalist zillionaires or their govt lapdogs.
It's the "If I can't have her nobody can have her" attitude that spoiled fucking idiots take when they don't get what they want. It's one thing to have grass roots organic growth and another to be actively sabotaged.If you were relying on patagonia to be a leader or even a belleweather, you were destined for disappointment
Lots of good community based movements coming out of this. Help and progress will be on the ground, not in the brains of capitalist zillionaires or their govt lapdogs.
Meet your masters, america
Last edited:
oh thank god
the former cop is hovering above the commoners feeling the pain while her superior is telling everyone to be polite
the former cop is hovering above the commoners feeling the pain while her superior is telling everyone to be polite
va senator right after giving a speech yesterday
www.twitter.com/SenLouiseLucas/status/1540400810890346498
www.twitter.com/SenLouiseLucas/status/1540400810890346498
Last edited:
I haven't yet read the dissent, but took a few notes re-reading the majority opinion:
The opinion denies the inherent right to an abortion protected under the Constitution largely because it finds no historical thread supporting such a right.
This invalidates all the jurisprudence that has ever protected us from the mistakes of what Jefferson called our “barbarous ancestors,” like segregation, miscegeny, sodomy, etc. These repressive, odious laws HAVE what the majority calls “deep roots” in our society, and which definitely needed to be made illegitimate as society progressed towards greater freedom. It’s seriously ironic that “originalism” chips away at freedoms rather than expanding them…exactly what made some of the Founders uneasy concerning establishing a specific bill of rights. They were worried that only specifically enumerated rights would be held as protected. Now look where we are…
Odd that the people who prevaricated at their hearings now feel compelled to explicitly tell us that they definitely DON’T mean to chip away at the very rights their decision undermines through the fiction of originalism. The SCOTUS doth protest too much, methinks.
SCOTUS has re-interpreted the Constitution under modern conditions frequently and critically…for one simple example, without SCOTUS we would have no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which expands the 4th Amendment way beyond what is specifically written…the critical case actually involved our right to be free of warrantless wiretapping, which was legal because the wiretaps weren’t placed within the context of person, papers, or homes as detailed in the 4th Amendment. Extending this amendment's scope via judicial decision was wise and appropriate and preserves our freedoms from government intrusion, and I doubt anyone would seriously try to peel that back. But if you apply “originalism” to it, well, hello universal technical surveillance...
Speaking of the 4th Amendment, it guarantees that our persons are free of unreasonable search and seizure. That’s enough, period, to support full bodily autonomy for everyone. The pro-forced-birth crowd would try and apply it to a fetus, but this is 100% about the womb-havers’ rights to their own bodies, and I don’t see how the 4th Amendment is not the focus of this discussion vice the 14th.
Just a few thoughts in a stream of consciousness.
The opinion denies the inherent right to an abortion protected under the Constitution largely because it finds no historical thread supporting such a right.
This invalidates all the jurisprudence that has ever protected us from the mistakes of what Jefferson called our “barbarous ancestors,” like segregation, miscegeny, sodomy, etc. These repressive, odious laws HAVE what the majority calls “deep roots” in our society, and which definitely needed to be made illegitimate as society progressed towards greater freedom. It’s seriously ironic that “originalism” chips away at freedoms rather than expanding them…exactly what made some of the Founders uneasy concerning establishing a specific bill of rights. They were worried that only specifically enumerated rights would be held as protected. Now look where we are…
Odd that the people who prevaricated at their hearings now feel compelled to explicitly tell us that they definitely DON’T mean to chip away at the very rights their decision undermines through the fiction of originalism. The SCOTUS doth protest too much, methinks.
SCOTUS has re-interpreted the Constitution under modern conditions frequently and critically…for one simple example, without SCOTUS we would have no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which expands the 4th Amendment way beyond what is specifically written…the critical case actually involved our right to be free of warrantless wiretapping, which was legal because the wiretaps weren’t placed within the context of person, papers, or homes as detailed in the 4th Amendment. Extending this amendment's scope via judicial decision was wise and appropriate and preserves our freedoms from government intrusion, and I doubt anyone would seriously try to peel that back. But if you apply “originalism” to it, well, hello universal technical surveillance...
Speaking of the 4th Amendment, it guarantees that our persons are free of unreasonable search and seizure. That’s enough, period, to support full bodily autonomy for everyone. The pro-forced-birth crowd would try and apply it to a fetus, but this is 100% about the womb-havers’ rights to their own bodies, and I don’t see how the 4th Amendment is not the focus of this discussion vice the 14th.
Just a few thoughts in a stream of consciousness.
we run our country based on 10 peoples' highly subjective readings of a document written when leeches were medicine and raping your slaves was high society
Theres a clear majority that wants safe legal abortion access. But its not being done. If ever there was a case for a constitutional amendment, this is it. Even most wierdos in the catholic cult want it. Relying on states for this is just as dumb as thinking the constitution is devinely inspired. Listening to crazy people with imaginary sky daddys is self destruction.
Theres a clear majority that wants safe legal abortion access. But its not being done. If ever there was a case for a constitutional amendment, this is it. Even most wierdos in the catholic cult want it. Relying on states for this is just as dumb as thinking the constitution is devinely inspired. Listening to crazy people with imaginary sky daddys is self destruction.
Last edited:
sayin it outloud now....
www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
www.thedailybeast.com
www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
MAGA Rep Thanks Trump for Giving ‘White Life’ a Win
A spokesperson for Mary Miller later said she meant to say “right to life” but misread her lines.
www.thedailybeast.com
Last edited:
Well I guess I'm not super-stupid, though the dissenters say it much more official-like than I did:
And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions. The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does “cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66; cf. ante, at 3 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (advocating the overruling of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell). But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. Ante, at 32. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” Ante, at 15. So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.
^they're right you know
And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions. The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does “cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66; cf. ante, at 3 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (advocating the overruling of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell). But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. Ante, at 32. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” Ante, at 15. So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.
^they're right you know
Well, I stand corrected.
Yeah
Thats the problem. Our legal system is fucking moronic. It just led to a case for balkanization. Because originalism or some other stupid religious shit. And 50 years of something pretty much everyone wants hung on an interpretation of an ancient scroll.
Im stockin up on condoms to mail to mississippi. After the first month imma start filling them with feces for the cops that will be intercepting them.
Last edited:
Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.www.politico.com
Yeah, that's bad.
edit:
Though on the other hand, if you wanted to motivate (D) voters in the midterms, this would probably be a pretty good way to do it.
If the explicitly declared desire to overturn further cases happen then we will have de-facto free and unfree states when it comes to the rights of a majority of the population. That didn't exactly have a clean resolution last time and there will be no easily drawn geographical lines.
If the court is so hell bent on tradition make the fuckers wear wigs and get rid of the air their conditioning and central heating. DC is pleasant no times of the year.
Good point you sniveling worm, because that is the historical direction of violence.
Said the quiet part out loud?
abcnews.go.com
GOP Rep. Miller, speaking alongside Trump, calls SCOTUS ruling 'victory for white life'
Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said at an Illinois Trump rally Saturday that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a "historic victory for white life."
abcnews.go.com
plagiaristSaid the quiet part out loud?
GOP Rep. Miller, speaking alongside Trump, calls SCOTUS ruling 'victory for white life'
Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said at an Illinois Trump rally Saturday that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a "historic victory for white life."
titssayin it outloud now....
www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
MAGA Rep Thanks Trump for Giving ‘White Life’ a Win
A spokesperson for Mary Miller later said she meant to say “right to life” but misread her lines.
Last edited:
Illinois Congresswoman Says ‘Hitler Was Right on One Thing'
A newly-sworn in congresswoman from southern Illinois quoted Adolf Hitler as she spoke outside the U.S. Capitol, saying the German Nazi leader “was right on one thing.”
www.nbcchicago.com
She meant to say "right to life"
Rep. Miller thanks Trump for 'victory for white life,' campaign says she misread remarks
A spokesman for Miller said she meant to say "right to life" in her remarks.
I'm 100% sure she's lying through her fucking teeth because those aren't even close to the same sentence flow.
I just think she's dumb enough to not realize she should care until after people pointed it out
She's not even smart enough to realize there are better examples for teaching youth than the third reich.
If she meant to say right to life, she should would have stumbled more and/or corrected herself. I mean we do have actual full fledged white nationalists all up in this joint. Politicians too.
She's not even smart enough to realize there are better examples for teaching youth than the third reich.
If she meant to say right to life, she should would have stumbled more and/or corrected herself. I mean we do have actual full fledged white nationalists all up in this joint. Politicians too.
Last edited:
Is he wrong? 
www.independent.co.uk
Jacob Wohl crashes pro-choice protest, telling women to ‘go home’ to the ‘kitchen’
The conspiracy theorist faces a $5m fine from the FCC for attempting to intimidate Black voters with disinformation during the 2020 election
www.independent.co.uk
show her this
and this
either a bean bag or more likely a 40mm rubber slug at point blank range
Last edited:
obv you missed the NSFW tags, cause now yer just gonna get some nipples.
Good catch. Gramps was positing without his spectacles again.
sayin it outloud now....
www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
MAGA Rep Thanks Trump for Giving ‘White Life’ a Win
A spokesperson for Mary Miller later said she meant to say “right to life” but misread her lines.
This I don't understand.
How is it a victory for privileged white racists who are scared of being replaced, if you force poor brown people to reproduce?