SCOTUS

Ugh.
User avatar
jhawks99
Contributor
Posts: 15943
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 am
Location: Woodbury, MN

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhawks99 »

Me either. But I hate this ruling. To me it's no different than saying Walgreen's does not have to serve black people at their lunch counter.
Defense. Rebounds.
User avatar
ousdahl
Posts: 29004
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ousdahl »

I think 99’s gripe is a whole different 1st amendment question that I too wish would be brought:


Why should churches be exempt from taxes?

If they are, why should they be eligible to receive taxpayer handouts for anything from adoption services to covid relief?

“make no law respecting an establishment of religion” comes before “prohibit the free exercise thereof”
User avatar
PhDhawk
Posts: 10076
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:03 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by PhDhawk »

ousdahl wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:07 pm I think 99’s gripe is a whole different 1st amendment question that I too wish would be brought:


Why should churches be exempt from taxes?

If they are, why should they be eligible to receive taxpayer handouts for anything from adoption services to covid relief?

“make no law respecting an establishment of religion” comes before “prohibit the free exercise thereof”
I agree they shouldn't have gotten Covid relief.

CSS is a charitable organization though if I'm not mistaken. So, it's not a church, though it is affiliated with one.
I only came to kick some ass...

Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
User avatar
ousdahl
Posts: 29004
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ousdahl »

Oh yea, I suppose.

But heck, many of the constitutional questions would be moot if they’d just open a criminal investigation into the church’s systemic child molestation.
Overlander
Contributor
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:12 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Overlander »

ousdahl wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:13 pm Oh yea, I suppose.

But heck, many of the constitutional questions would be moot if they’d just open a criminal investigation into the church’s systemic child molestation.
I wonder what going price for cute brown kids is now that the supply of incoming "orphans" has been reduced?
User avatar
ousdahl
Posts: 29004
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ousdahl »

Jeeebus.

Speaking of, and totally related, more and more remains of indigenous kids are showing up at “residential schools” in Canada.

And apparently, residential schools are mandatory boarding schools to assimilate indigenous kids into dominant Canadian culture, funded by the Canadian gummint and administered by Christian churches.

Just for a moment, stop and pretend the remains of white kids were being found…
User avatar
sdoyel
Posts: 12426
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:18 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: SCOTUS

Post by sdoyel »

"The real issue with covid: its not killing enough people." - randylahey

GTS Champ 2008
GTS Champ 2020*

“We good?” - Bill Self

RIP jhawk73

🇺🇦
User avatar
ousdahl
Posts: 29004
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ousdahl »

New term!

Who’s ready for some guns god and abortion lulz?
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3551
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: SCOTUS

Post by zsn »

You forgot White Supremacy
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 16117
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

The chutzpah, my goodness.

Opinion: Mitch McConnell: Democrats, leave the Supreme Court alone

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is the Senate minority leader.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... democrats/
The president’s decision in April to stand up this commission was no isolated event. Naked attempts to bully judges have become a core priority for today’s Democratic Party.

Early last year, my Democratic counterpart, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), joined activists on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two justices by name should they disappoint liberals with a particular ruling.

A few months before that, as The Post reported, sitting Senate Democrats, including the now-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent the court an outrageous amicus brief that read like a ransom note from junior-varsity mafiosos. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they threatened, “and the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured. …’”

In other words: Nice independent judiciary you’ve got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.

[...]

Even if Democrats fail at structurally changing the court, they could still succeed at applying improper pressure. The left wants to prey on justices’ instincts to protect their institution by having “court reform” hang over them like a sword of Damocles. The left hopes that a manufactured cloud of fake concerns about the court’s legitimacy may be enough to change which cases the court decides to hear, how it hears them and what rulings it hands down.

But if the justices fell into Democrats’ trap and let political threats change legal outcomes, they would not be shoring up their institution, but undermining it. It would poison the actual source of the court’s legitimacy — its impartiality. Moreover, appeasement would not even end the threats and reckless tactics. It would guarantee more. Hostage-takers will not settle for half a loaf.

The Senate exists to defeat shortsighted proposals and protect our institutions from structural vandalism. That is our job. The American people need their judges to do theirs: follow the law wherever it may lead, independent and unafraid.

Biden campaigned on unity and moderation. He won a close victory with an evenly split Senate and negative coattails in the House.

As this month’s elections confirmed, Americans did not hand Democrats any mandate to let radicals transform the country. And they certainly have no mandate to permanently damage the rule of law.
Leawood
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:18 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Leawood »

I think the Supreme Court, in this age of electronic communication, understands the notion of maintaining stability in the law. I’m just somewhat disappointed in Breyer.

Let things play out.
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3551
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: SCOTUS

Post by zsn »

There are so many falsehoods, obfuscation and spinning that I don’t know where to start. One place would be “Mitch, if there’s one person who shares about 90% of the blame it’s a Senator whose name starts with ’M’ and ends with ‘Connell’

Hopefully Roberts views his legacy as worth preserving.
Deleted User 89

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Deleted User 89 »

apparently, we can totally do away with abortion because…adoption
User avatar
ousdahl
Posts: 29004
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ousdahl »

Been waiting for a bump to this thread. Could be lots of action to come.

https://twitter.com/cecilerichards/stat ... 02723?s=21
User avatar
Cascadia
Posts: 6677
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:15 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Cascadia »

Kavanaugh is a scumbag, who knew?!
Deleted User 863

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Deleted User 863 »

How can we be sure the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?
RainbowsandUnicorns
Contributor
Posts: 9350
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by RainbowsandUnicorns »

BasketballJayhawk wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:46 pm How can we be sure the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?
I have posted in length about how I was adopted. I offended at least one person when I said I probably should have been aborted - and there have been times when I wish I was. With what I feel is/was good/legitimate reason/s.
I admit I will probably have mixed feelings about that for the rest of my life.
MICHHAWK wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:48 am
your posting history on this this site alone. says you should not be calling other people stupid.
Deleted User 863

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Deleted User 863 »

We know what the mother wants in these types of scenarios. But we don't know what the fetus wants. We assume the fetus wants to live. But maybe the fetus wants (in fantasy world where fetuses want things) to do what is best for its' mother?
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3551
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: SCOTUS

Post by zsn »

In a very cynical way I’m rooting for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe and kick it to the States. We’ll have a clear sorting out of pro-choice and forced-birth States. More importantly it would remove one of two or three things which Republicans actually want to work on. This way the main thing they would be left with is White Supremacy. It would likely stop bringing the single issue voters to the polls, and at least then the extremists like MTG and Boebert will stop getting elected
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 16117
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

zsn wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:31 pm In a very cynical way I’m rooting for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe and kick it to the States. We’ll have a clear sorting out of pro-choice and forced-birth States. More importantly it would remove one of two or three things which Republicans actually want to work on. This way the main thing they would be left with is White Supremacy. It would likely stop bringing the single issue voters to the polls, and at least then the extremists like MTG and Boebert will stop getting elected
I hope so. But I also fear that the "winning" of culture wars has far exceeded in importance the substance of any particular front; if the lunatics "win" abortion, the lust for power and control may well just find a new host issue.
Post Reply