RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx
 

OK, May is here. Anyone have any new topic suggestions to get riots and protesting underway for the 2022 season?

Why do you assume there will be riots? When liberals don't get their way, when have they ever rioted? Don't they usually respond by starting grass-roots campaigns, writing letters to their congressmen, etc??

It's an unbelievable story, many fascinating angles.

It might be exactly the mobilizing tempest that the left needed to prevent a rout in November.

And I hope Samuel Alito has someone tasting his food and starting his car for him. Instead of pooling our money to buy Powerball tickets, I suggest we pool our money to take out a life insurance policy on Samuel Alito.

If it's even true...who knows if it's the most recent draft? Drafts change, that's why they call it a draft.

MSNBC and CNN are saying untold millions of women will die in back alley abortions. But even if Roe is repealed, liberal states will continue to provide safe (for the mother, that is) abortions. Why would anyone be stupid enough to reach for a coat hanger instead of driving to a Planned Parenthood in the next state over? I just don't see how repealing Roe has a huge practical effect, though obviously travel makes the logistics harder, but nowhere near impossible. I can't see many states outlawing abortion. Only the reddest of red states.

The 1973 Roe decision was decided 7-2 and written by a Nixon appointee. The 1987 Casey decision upholding Roe was written by a Reagan appointee on a Court w/ 8 justices appointed by GOP presidents.

Rejecting Roe as “egregiously wrong” 50 yrs later = a radical, political act.

Alito's draft declares that, inter alia, the right to marry a person of a different race, the right to contraception, and the right not to be forcibly sterilized, all lack "any claim to being deeply rooted in history" – which is the same reason he overrules the right to abortion.

For those capable of grasping its breadth, losing the right to privacy will mean the end of every other Constitutional guarantee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the late 1890's, the SCOTUS decided in Plessy V Ferguson, that segregation was constitutional. That remained "the law of the land" for about 50 years.

Then in 1954, SCOTUS essentially overturned Plessy V Ferguson in the case of Brown V Board Of Education, which paved the way to end segregation.

Should the SCOTUS in 1954 have automatically sided with precedent, and left segregation as the law of the land? Were they wrong to ignore precedent and overturn a decision they thought was wrong on the law?

Or are there cases where the court can/should throw out precedent and leave it in the ash heap of history, because previous justices were simply wrong?

Next up:

Griswold vs Connecticut
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ginni Thomas
leaked the SCJ ruling

OK youre on a roll with Looney Tunes references, they're the best...

my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling.

Funny I suggested the same. Thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m assuming Rudy will start one, along with Hawley, Cruz and Mo Brooks. Oh wait they already did.

The “Peoples Convoy” aka Antivacc caravan is coming back to DC after citizens in CA got sick of them honking and started egging them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th



"Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th. The Court was the one institution where conservatives and liberals lived in peace and trust," wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich.


Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.

Mitch and right is off to the races blaming it on a liberal leak let me guess it was Antifa just like Jan 6th

That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ?

most on the left had a good idea it was going to lean that way anyway

where the advantage ? or perceived leverage or mob rule or intimidation they already wrote it?



A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base ... there's Mitch's campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law. by a minority

Q: As you may know, abortion law in the United States is based on the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Roe v. Wade. Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade or overturn it?

By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned


54 % say yes 28% no 18% no opinion

Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have said they want Roe v. Wade to remain, according to polling conducted by Gallup

Broad support for abortion rights: Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May 2021, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.

The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high of 47% in May, up from a low of 36% in 2009, and a Quinnipiac poll found support for abortion being legal in all or most cases reached a near-record high in September with 63% support.


We are seeing the Tyranny of the Minority play out

"wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich. "

I follow news more closely than you do, and I've never heard of this guy.

Harvey Weinstein was a huge democrat. Does that say ANYTHING about you? If not, this clown doesn't say anything about me.

" That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ? "

Because you stink at this stuff. The leak has multiple benefits to the left, it has zero benefit to the right. If the leaker is caught, the motives are much more important than the party affiliation.

"By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned "

Unfortunately for them, judges who know their jobs, don't base decisions based on popularity. The left never stops crying about how unpopular this is. That doesn't matter. All that matters, is the constitutionality. The word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution, neither is the word "privacy". Many, many legal scholars think that it was poorly decided. Judges make mistakes too, they aren't gods. In any event, please tell me why popularity matters one bit when a judge is making a decision? Do you have any idea why the statue of Lady Justice depicts her in a blindfold? Do you have any clue what the blindfold represents? It means that personal agendas and personal desires are left at the door. All that matters is if something is constitutional.

You want abortion to be clearly constitutional? Amend the constitution (there's a mechanism to do this) to specify abortion, then it's irrefutably constitutional. Until then, it's very subjective.

"where the advantage ? "

It puts a huge amount of public pressure on judges. A weak willed judge might see how angry everyone is, and change their minds. That's the obvious advantage. That's what this is an assault on the basic concept of justice.


"A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base"

You're assuming the conservative judges answer to their base, but they've decided plenty of cases in ways that disappointed conservatives.

"The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high"

(1) Again, that's absolutely meaningless to a judge. It must be meaningless to a judge, or there's no such thing as justice, there's only majority rule.

(2) Even if Roe is overturned, that doesn't mean abortion is outlawed. It means it's a state issue. State legislatures will decide it, which is exactly where this belongs, in the hands of people who are elected by, and therefore answerable to, us. Any state where most people want abortion, will continue to provide it. That's how democracy works.

We weren't polarized enough! Going to be an interesting summer and fall...

The “riot” at the Capitol looks completely different than the mostly peaceful protest on the 6th. Someone is likely to loose their job over the leak, but it will probably make the mid terms interesting.

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note


And every Red state is now part of the 3rd world

GOP progress on display
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i go by the merits of an argument. not just who agrees. i’m very secure in my beliefs.

if you’re right, there will be a huge exodus from those third world red states.

but you’re not right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which countries think the solution
to surging crime, is less police presence? where’s that list? I’m sure that’s an impressive list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep changing the subject your good at it.

Ps why did At least two of the recent appointed judges who swore up and down that they cared about the rule of law and Roe v Wade is settled law.” Lied?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

same exact subject. identical. you’re saying republicans are judged by people who agree with them. you’ll never hold your side to the same standard.

same exact subject.

there’s nothing non judicial about reversing precedent. why are you acting like it’s never been done? bad laws get overturned. accepting current law, isn’t the same as saying you’ll side with it forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just wait, RIOT season starts soon.

If you mean women of this country rising up not willing to have old white fossils tell them they have to have that unwanted baby their uncle, rapist or supposed boy friend left them, instead of being able to finish school, enjoy a career or actually have a family with someone that loves them; well you are probably correct.

If you’re really unhappy about having protests, you’ve got options
None of the options have the freedoms that citizens do in this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It looks to me like the dog caught the car, after forty years of attacking Roe vs Wade they may have finally caught it.
Great job attaining something deemed worthwhile by less than 40% of the population.

Case # 1
A Jewish woman who has access to an abortion provider denied in a Christian Theocracy state sue that the Christian rules inhibit her religious freedom under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

She'll lose, because the conservative Supreme Court justices are nothing if not dripping wet hypocrites. But it's still the right argument to make.

Case #2
A woman who would like to remove not the fetus, but the placenta which is malfunctioning. That should be an equal protection claim because a man would be allowed to remove malfunctioning organs from his body.

Case #3
A straight 8th amendment claim: A rape victim should argue she's being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for somebody else's crime.

Case #4
A straight 13th Amendment claim that a person is being forced to labor against their will for no compensation, in violation of the constitutional prohibition on forced labor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t finish school, work, or get married if you have a baby and put it up for adoption?

please explain….because we all know people who have done exactly that

The dishonest hyperbole is incredible.

Oh, and why can’t they just continue to have abortions, where they will continue to be legal? do you understand that repealing Roe doesn’t mean abortion is outlawed?

the justices didn’t tell women what they can and can’t do. they said people can decide for themselves in state the legislatures, which is where the decision belongs.

is a little speck of honesty too much?

if a majority of people want abortion, a majority of states will continue to offer it.

that’s called democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your daughter is raped by her uncle, a stranger or a boy she thought wasn’t evil, she has to carry that child to term because of what, your misguided sense of right and wrong. Oh and after nine months she what just willingly gives up the baby she has taken to term, yeah how able she now feels obligated and her life just changed and not necessarily for the better. Your kidding yourself if you think that argument is that simple.

The states that want to ban abortion have something in common. Do you know what it is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just think if the goal was to support mothers and children, but that’s not what the GOP is pitching. If this country wanted to, it could reduce the number. We’d need a better adoption system, and financial support for women who want to carry to term, as well as preschool etc.

Then, there would be fewer abortions. Not zero, but fewer.

And if you think that making abortion illegal will work, just look at your speedometer the next time you drive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you told a handful of ridiculous, demonstrable lies. you have nothing to say except pivoting to a very rare exception?

it’s my understanding that before roe v wade,,abortion was legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the luge of the mom was in danger. not everywhere, but in many states.

why would a woman who had no issues with slaughtering her unborn child in her womb, all of a dude. fee maternal instinct after the baby is born?

all you have is gotcha, hypothetical extremes. and you don’t even have that, because if women want an abortion, they can go to planned parenthood in the next state over to get one. not the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow rape or unwanted pregnancys are rare and every woman has the sensibilities, money and means to go to another state, you really do live in your own little bubble don’t you.

here, if you click on the table
referenced in the study, you’ll
see less than 1.5% of americans women getting abortion, cite rape or incest as a reason.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/...e-perspectives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GS i answered your questions.

please tel me why women can’t finish school,,get a job, or get married, if they put their baby up for adoption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I added unwanted and that covers a lot a ground and if a women is forced to carry and deliver an unwanted pregnancy and she is young and single, your kidding yourself if her life can just go on normally like nothing happened. I’m not going debate you, I am 100% behind a women’s choice to elect how she deals with a pregnancy, which in her state might not be evident until after it then becomes illegal. I hope the leaked brief upsets some Republican wins and costs them seats likely won. I’m heading back to my life, yours it seems is way to wrapped up in proving your view of basically anything is correct and how evil liberals and Dems are. I don’t know who I feel more sorry for on this never ending circle jerk called the political forum you few guys seem to enjoy, I’ve got better things to do. Only posted as I support a womens right to choose and hope this comes back to bite the right and I can always easily get Jim started on his next crusade.

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.

Was that a response to Jim in CT? I reread his thread and didn't see anything in it about the "act" being inconsequential. But, then, you do see things the way you want to see them.

As far as inconsequential goes the cost of a vaginal delivery in America as of 11/21 was $5-$11K. Who foots the bill for that, to say nothing of raising a child, when women are forced to give birth & the places most likely to force them to do so don’t fund medical & related services?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the US there have been 41 bombings of abortion clinics, and another 173 arsons.
11 total people have been murdered in 7 separate attacks on abortion clinics. There have also been 17 attempted murders.
To my knowledge, there are zero cases of pro-choice bombings or murders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, not this. not even close.

(1) everyone understands that the more restrictive abortion rights are, the harder things will be for some women. And i feel empathy for them.

but…

(2) please tell me where in the constitution, where it says that judges are supposed to decide cases, based on the premise of easing the burden for one side or the other. It doesn’t say that.

(3) i can happily and honestly discuss the impact of restrictions on women. You can raise my taxes to pay for effective sex education and availability of contraception. I’m all in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancies. You can also raise my taxes to pay for expenses to help pregnant women carry the baby and give it up for adoption.

It’s your side, which never, ever discusses the impact of all this to the other party involved, the baby. All you do is express concern for the mother. The mother isn’t the only one involved. You’ll never be aborted, and you have literally zero empathy or consideration for the tens of millions who are.

i have deep empathy for a woman who is pregnant and in despair over it. That empathy, does t extend to the point where i’m ok with them slaughtering someone else to ease their burden.

there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.

There is an explicit, irrefutable
right, to not have your life taken without due process.

The issue of abortion isn’t about women’s rights, because we all agree that women can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t harm someone else. we all agree on that.

The whole issue then, is whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”. every other angle of this, is a politically motivated smokescreen.

that’s all that matters here, the status of the baby. yet your side never mentions it. because they know it makes their position look monstrous.

you focus on the impact to mothers, and ignore the impact to the babies, because it’s more convenient for you. It’s also extremely intellectually dishonest and cowardly. But it makes your position a whole lot easier to do defend, and that’s all just matters.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes you added unwanted. but you included rape and incest, which is a rounding error.

if a woman can dismember a baby in her womb and “carry on with her life like nothing happened”, please explain why she can’t do the same if she gives the baby up for adoption, giving the baby a life and giving a desperate couple something they can love. it’s about as loving and noble and heroic a thing as i can imagine.

and like every other pro abortion person, you spend 100% of your focus on the mother, and you purposely ( and conveniently ) ignore the impact to the other party involved,,the baby.

It’s very convenient for you, to pretend like there’s only one side to this. I did that for a few years when i was pro abortion. then i bothered to consider the impact to the other party involved. And then i saw my first ultrasound of an unborn baby, and there wasn’t any ambiguity as to what i was looking at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservative logic and Jim carrying their water


there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.


let's just skip Unenumerated rights and the Ninth Amendment

here are some Basic Rights Not Listed in the Constitution so let go with The argument there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip. as they reason to overturn 50 years of settled law

So how willing is the GOP and the SCJ willing to go?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote (gop already dont think this is a right )
The Right to Travel
Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
and the big one the right to Reading and Interpreting the Constitution

Those who claim that the Constitution doesn’t say “right to privacy” or “separation of church and state” are relying upon the assumption that unless a particular phrase or specific words actually appears in the document, then the right doesn’t exist — either because the interpreters are drawing invalid implications or because it’s illegitimate to go beyond the exact text at all.

the GOP the constitution is for Me not thee . unless it's a right they agree with

of course there are non enumerated rights.

the right to life isn’t one of them. that’s enumerated clearly, isn’t it?

i’m not getting aborted. so how is my being pro life a scenario where i’m securing rights for me, that i’m not giving to thee? please, please explain.

you accuse me of carrying the rights water. yet i criticize the right frequently, and i’ve never seen you disagree with the left. not once.

doesn’t that imply that i think, and you’re the one carrying water?

sure seems so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device