Trump Policies, part IX

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

we knew this was coming.

i can’t to wait to have this smugly derpsplained


The justices will privately decide whether to hear a challenge to same-sex marriage brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis.

And just like that - Republicans herein who said it would never happen: I told you so.

These bastards will go after contraception next. All of those 6 Republican Justices are Catholic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide
And just like that - Republicans herein who said it would never happen: I told you so.

These bastards will go after contraception next. All of those 6 Republican Justices are Catholic.
When did considering a challenge become the same as overturning precedent? I stand by my assertion that gay marriage and contraception are perfectly safe.
 
When did considering a challenge become the same as overturning precedent? I stand by my assertion that gay marriage and contraception are perfectly safe.
I bet you dollars to donuts that while gay marriage and contraception will still likely be the law for a long time, these two areas will be attacked at the edges and the rights will be slowly whittled down until they are rights in name only. See the Voting Rights Act laws or protecting black voters as a wholly perfect example where the law and court precedent is continually attacked until it's nearly a law in title only.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide
I bet you dollars to donuts that while gay marriage and contraception will still likely be the law for a long time, these two areas will be attacked at the edges and the rights will be slowly whittled down until they are rights in name only. See the Voting Rights Act laws or protecting black voters as a wholly perfect example where the law and court precedent is continually attacked until it's nearly a law in title only.
Nonsense. Contraception has been wholly accepted by the Protestants and Evangelicals. So unless it's the abortion pill topic, it is fine. (And honestly, I'm not sure most people really understand how the so-called "abortion pills" even work.) Sure, we could try to educate people using non-confrontational means, but we don't have time for rational solutions. Everybody knows that facing off on a street corner and hurling stupid insults works so much better.

Also, trying to wipe out voter security and hiding it under the guise of protecting civil rights is a pretty clever idea. Thankfully, most people see right through it. There is only one reason to intentionally lower voting integrity and we all know what it is. Points for trying, though. ;)
 
I bet you dollars to donuts that while gay marriage and contraception will still likely be the law for a long time, these two areas will be attacked at the edges and the rights will be slowly whittled down until they are rights in name only. See the Voting Rights Act laws or protecting black voters as a wholly perfect example where the law and court precedent is continually attacked until it's nearly a law in title only.
Where are the eligible voters (US citizens only please) that are being denied their voting rights? I may be mistaken but I believe this last presidential election set records for turnout. Everyone that wants to vote can do so, either in person, or via the US mail, in every state in the Union. No one gets turned away except people that go to the wrong place or don't bring an ID (if their state requires it).
 
And just like that - Republicans herein who said it would never happen: I told you so.

These bastards will go after contraception next. All of those 6 Republican Justices are Catholic.
the pope is doing his part to rid the world of the dei scourge

Opus Dei, on the verge of ceasing to exist​


In Rome and at the headquarters of Opus Dei, no one denies it anymore: the new statutes, whose approval by the Holy See is expected to be imminent, will represent the definitive break from the original structure conceived by Saint José María. Sources consulted within the Curia and within the Opus Dei itself agree that the text is final and that its promulgation is a matter of weeks.
 
Remember this golden oldie(from each of the recent MAGA justices' confirmation hearings):

"ROE v WADE is established case law."
It was also "bad law" according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Apparently this diverse panel of judges agreed as compared to a collection of old white men.
 
Oh, I am sure that Justice Ginsberg would have voted to overturn Roe.

Well, maybe the Ginsberg that didn't get approved because he admitted to smoking pot. :D
In all seriousness, she did flatly admit she wouldn't vote to overturn it despite it being "bad law." That's where we are as a society now. I haven't trusted the judiciary in a long, long time.
 
In all seriousness, she did flatly admit she wouldn't vote to overturn it despite it being "bad law." That's where we are as a society now. I haven't trusted the judiciary in a long, long time.
It’s true that Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade, but that’s often taken out of context. She didn’t think abortion rights were “bad law.” She thought the way the Court reached that conclusion was flawed. Her issue wasn’t with protecting a woman’s right to choose, it was that the ruling was too sweeping and grounded in the wrong part of the Constitution (privacy instead of Equal Protection Clause).

She believed a narrower, incremental decision or one based on equal protection would have built a stronger, longer-lasting foundation for abortion rights. In other words, she supported the outcome, not the method.

So she thought the reasoning could have been better, but calling that an admission that Roe was “bad law” is stretching it. It’s like saying a teacher who criticizes your essay’s structure must disagree with your conclusion. She wanted a sturdier legal argument, not a different result.

And frankly, her point has been proven. The reasoning made it easier for later courts to chip away at the decision - and finally for the religious extremists to eliminate the right altogether.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide

Chris Murphy: So you should really watch this. Just 2 minutes. But a window into the truly radical nature of the people Trump is nominating.

When pressed today, the nominee to be Ambassador to South Africa refuses to oppose reinstituting laws to prevent black people from voting in America.






Not a surprise from a guy whose son was one of the January 6 rioters (pardoned of course by that noted respecter of law and order, Donald Trump).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
Advertisement

Trending content

Latest threads