2022 SCOTUS rulings

[kalm]

A couple more hot takes.

[GannonFan]

A couple more hot takes.

I don't understand any of those hot takes.

On Snowden's, the whole issue is human rights - the right of the fetus to live and the right of a woman not to carry to term. The problem is, we don't have a neat and clean answer to that right now.

On the other guy, who is he kidding, Bernie was never going to be President. Trump would've beaten him as well. The problem is the bench for the Dems has been distressingly thin as of late. Just looking at the motley crew in the primary for 2020 sums that up pretty well. Biden, dementia and all, was the best of the bunch. The irony is Harris wasn't even top 3 or 4, yet now they'll have to at least consider her in 2024 due to her current office. What a mess.

[kalm]

A couple more hot takes.

I don't understand any of those hot takes.

On Snowden's, the whole issue is human rights - the right of the fetus to live and the right of a woman not to carry to term. The problem is, we don't have a neat and clean answer to that right now.

On the other guy, who is he kidding, Bernie was never going to be President. Trump would've beaten him as well. The problem is the bench for the Dems has been distressingly thin as of late. Just looking at the motley crew in the primary for 2020 sums that up pretty well. Biden, dementia and all, was the best of the bunch. The irony is Harris wasn't even top 3 or 4, yet now they'll have to at least consider her in 2024 due to her current office. What a mess.

Your honesty is appreciated. I agree with you on your Snowden take. The women’s rights part being under-appreciated.

Sirota is spot on. The establishment left hates the progressives every bit as much as Republicans do. Bernie was polling way ahead of Trump in 2016. Part of Trump’s success was being perceived as a change agent. Bernie was able to win elections in Vermont counties that voted heavily for Bush. No way of knowing a Bernie v Trump outcome but it ain’t a stretch at all to see Bernie winning that one.

Here’s a cold take for ya that hasn’t really changed much since the 80’s.

[93henfan]

I couldn't give fuck all about Roe. If they give the rights to states, as the US Constitution specifies, then probably 35 (roughly) states will not change their laws whatsoever. If you don't like the laws made in the one you live in, move. Or, simply drive or fly to the state with the rules you like and get that baby yanked out of you. And it'll still be paid for by my tax dollars. I'll still be paying for your irresponsible decision-making, as I have been since my first paycheck.

So quit crying and clutching pearls. Nothing really changes, other than you may be inconvenienced by a couple of hours to go commit your little white murder.



Now, for real change, I'm hoping that SCOTUS rightly rules in the gun club's favor in the NY Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to protect myself anywhere I travel, including the NY Subway, which is obviously a place people should be able to protect themselves and others from grave bodily harm. Nationwide concealed carry or bust.

[JohnStOnge]

i'm fine if this Supreme Court overturns Roe and picks this Summer to do it. i think the Constitution should be interpreted according to an honest effort to apply any Constitutional language as it was generally understood when it was generated. i never thought Roe did that. Also, i am a "live begins at conception" person.

Meanwhile, we need something to change the dynamic if we want to avoid having the Republican Party from taking control of the legislative Branch. While we don't know if a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe would do that, it could. Notably, there are already Republicans in the Federal legislative branch talking about making a national abortion prohibition if they take power. That gives something Democrats can focus on. "If the Republicans gain control, they will outlaw abortion everywhere."

There is at least potential that kind of thing could hurt Republicans in swing States and districts, because the majority of the population does not want Roe overturned and, I think, would not want to have Congress impose a national ban.

This gives Democrats a chance to cast the Republican base as the American Taliban. Might not work. But it's worth a shot.

[kalm]

i'm fine if this Supreme Court overturns Roe and picks this Summer to do it. i think the Constitution should be interpreted according to an honest effort to apply any Constitutional language as it was generally understood when it was understood when it was generated. i never thought Roe did that. Also, i am a "live begins at conception" person.

Meanwhile, we need something to change the dynamic if we want to avoid having the Republican Party from taking control of the legislative Branch. While we don't know if a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe would do that, it could. Notably, there are already Republicans in the Federal legislative branch talking about making a national abortion prohibition if they take power. That gives something Democrats can focus on. "If the Republicans gain control, they will outlaw abortion everywhere."

There is at least potential that kind of thing could hurt Republicans in swing States and districts, because the majority of the population does not want Roe overturned and, I think, would not want to have Congress impose a national ban.

This gives Democrats a chance to cast the Republican base as the American Taliban. Might not work. But it's worth a shot.

It certainly won’t hurt Democratic enthusiasm. It will move done moderates left and the far left to the right.

[JohnStOnge]

i'm fine if this Supreme Court overturns Roe and picks this Summer to do it. i think the Constitution should be interpreted according to an honest effort to apply any Constitutional language as it was generally understood when it was understood when it was generated. i never thought Roe did that. Also, i am a "live begins at conception" person.

Meanwhile, we need something to change the dynamic if we want to avoid having the Republican Party from taking control of the legislative Branch. While we don't know if a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe would do that, it could. Notably, there are already Republicans in the Federal legislative branch talking about making a national abortion prohibition if they take power. That gives something Democrats can focus on. "If the Republicans gain control, they will outlaw abortion everywhere."

There is at least potential that kind of thing could hurt Republicans in swing States and districts, because the majority of the population does not want Roe overturned and, I think, would not want to have Congress impose a national ban.

This gives Democrats a chance to cast the Republican base as the American Taliban. Might not work. But it's worth a shot.

It certainly won’t hurt Democratic enthusiasm. It will move done moderates left and the far left to the right.

it gives them a specific "scary" scenario to emphasize; particularly because some Republicans are already taking about trying to ban abortion nationally if they take control of the legislature. Would it work? I don't know. But it's significant change in the landscape that they may be able to take advantage of.

I think many on the right have been very focused on abortion and Roe while many in the middle and on the left just figured it was settled. i think for sure that if you can successfully cast it as "The Republicans will outlaw abortion everywhere" a substantial majority of women will be put off by Republicans.

[BDKJMU]

The 9th Amendment says its specific absence is not a reason to deny a right. So, I don't know why you want someone to point to where it is specifically enumerated. It doesn't matter.

SCOTUS has also said the 9th Amendment protects, for example, the right to attend private school. Do you think a state would be in violation of the Constitution if it required all kids attend public school?

Its not a right in the text, And the 10th says if its not there, it is reserved to the states.

[BDKJMU]

Pocahontas:

[SuperHornet]

I'd sure like to know what makes Gavin Newsom think he has the right to speak for ALL women. SMH....

[AZGrizFan]

I don't understand any of those hot takes.

On Snowden's, the whole issue is human rights - the right of the fetus to live and the right of a woman not to carry to term. The problem is, we don't have a neat and clean answer to that right now.

On the other guy, who is he kidding, Bernie was never going to be President. Trump would've beaten him as well. The problem is the bench for the Dems has been distressingly thin as of late. Just looking at the motley crew in the primary for 2020 sums that up pretty well. Biden, dementia and all, was the best of the bunch. The irony is Harris wasn't even top 3 or 4, yet now they'll have to at least consider her in 2024 due to her current office. What a mess.

Your honesty is appreciated. I agree with you on your Snowden take. The women’s rights part being under-appreciated.

Sirota is spot on. The establishment left hates the progressives every bit as much as Republicans do. Bernie was polling way ahead of Trump in 2016. Part of Trump’s success was being perceived as a change agent. Bernie was able to win elections in Vermont counties that voted heavily for Bush. No way of knowing a Bernie v Trump outcome but it ain’t a stretch at all to see Bernie winning that one.

Here’s a cold take for ya that hasn’t really changed much since the 80’s.

Well, the fetus’s have had ZERO rights for about 59 years, so maybe it’s time to give them a turn in the barrel.

[AZGrizFan]

I couldn't give fuck all about Roe. If they give the rights to states, as the US Constitution specifies, then probably 35 (roughly) states will not change their laws whatsoever. If you don't like the laws made in the one you live in, move. Or, simply drive or fly to the state with the rules you like and get that baby yanked out of you. And it'll still be paid for by my tax dollars. I'll still be paying for your irresponsible decision-making, as I have been since my first paycheck.

So quit crying and clutching pearls. Nothing really changes, other than you may be inconvenienced by a couple of hours to go commit your little white murder.



Now, for real change, I'm hoping that SCOTUS rightly rules in the gun club's favor in the NY Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to protect myself anywhere I travel, including the NY Subway, which is obviously a place people should be able to protect themselves and others from grave bodily harm. Nationwide concealed carry or bust.

My god, the histrionics on twitter are fucking comical over this.

[AZGrizFan]

i'm fine if this Supreme Court overturns Roe and picks this Summer to do it. i think the Constitution should be interpreted according to an honest effort to apply any Constitutional language as it was generally understood when it was generated. i never thought Roe did that. Also, i am a "live begins at conception" person.

Meanwhile, we need something to change the dynamic if we want to avoid having the Republican Party from taking control of the legislative Branch. While we don't know if a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe would do that, it could. Notably, there are already Republicans in the Federal legislative branch talking about making a national abortion prohibition if they take power. That gives something Democrats can focus on. "If the Republicans gain control, they will outlaw abortion everywhere."

There is at least potential that kind of thing could hurt Republicans in swing States and districts, because the majority of the population does not want Roe overturned and, I think, would not want to have Congress impose a national ban.

This gives Democrats a chance to cast the Republican base as the American Taliban. Might not work. But it's worth a shot.

Yep. No hyperbole here.

[houndawg]

January 6 wasn't an insurrection but a leak of a SCOTUS draft is?





Fvcking snowflakes!

It will be an insurrection when the wimmin take over SCOTUS and start shitting on the floor

[houndawg]

A couple more hot takes.

I don't understand any of those hot takes.

On Snowden's, the whole issue is human rights - the right of the fetus to live and the right of a woman not to carry to term. The problem is, we don't have a neat and clean answer to that right now.

On the other guy, who is he kidding, Bernie was never going to be President. Trump would've beaten him as well. The problem is the bench for the Dems has been distressingly thin as of late. Just looking at the motley crew in the primary for 2020 sums that up pretty well. Biden, dementia and all, was the best of the bunch. The irony is Harris wasn't even top 3 or 4, yet now they'll have to at least consider her in 2024 due to her current office. What a mess.

You don't know that. He polled better vs Trump than any of the candidates and would have easily outperformed Hillary just through increased turnout.
The DNC is a private organization and can nominate whoever they want regardless of public opinion. Thats why the independent left stayed home

[Winterborn]

I couldn't give fuck all about Roe. If they give the rights to states, as the US Constitution specifies, then probably 35 (roughly) states will not change their laws whatsoever. If you don't like the laws made in the one you live in, move. Or, simply drive or fly to the state with the rules you like and get that baby yanked out of you. And it'll still be paid for by my tax dollars. I'll still be paying for your irresponsible decision-making, as I have been since my first paycheck.

So quit crying and clutching pearls. Nothing really changes, other than you may be inconvenienced by a couple of hours to go commit your little white murder.



Now, for real change, I'm hoping that SCOTUS rightly rules in the gun club's favor in the NY Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to protect myself anywhere I travel, including the NY Subway, which is obviously a place people should be able to protect themselves and others from grave bodily harm. Nationwide concealed carry or bust.

My god, the histrionics on twitter are fucking comical over this.

Probably the best since Trump was tweeting mean things at 2am.

[Ibanez]

Are abortion clinics owed any relief if the government decides their business is no longer legal in their state?

[Winterborn]

i'm fine if this Supreme Court overturns Roe and picks this Summer to do it. i think the Constitution should be interpreted according to an honest effort to apply any Constitutional language as it was generally understood when it was generated. i never thought Roe did that. Also, i am a "live begins at conception" person.

Meanwhile, we need something to change the dynamic if we want to avoid having the Republican Party from taking control of the legislative Branch. While we don't know if a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe would do that, it could. Notably, there are already Republicans in the Federal legislative branch talking about making a national abortion prohibition if they take power. That gives something Democrats can focus on. "If the Republicans gain control, they will outlaw abortion everywhere."

There is at least potential that kind of thing could hurt Republicans in swing States and districts, because the majority of the population does not want Roe overturned and, I think, would not want to have Congress impose a national ban.

This gives Democrats a chance to cast the Republican base as the American Taliban. Might not work. But it's worth a shot.

Yep. No hyperbole here.

I liked the portion where he called the Republicans the "American Taliban" and thought it was a nice touch.

And the couple of Republicans calling for a "national abortion prohibition" are just pure opportunist trying to appeal to their particular base. There is no more chance of that happening than making abortion legal nationally (which several Democrats have called for but didn't see JSO mention them).

[HI54UNI]

Now that men can have babies the SC may overturn Roe? That's some bullshit! Why does the SC hate men?

[Winterborn]

It certainly won’t hurt Democratic enthusiasm. It will move done moderates left and the far left to the right.

I actually think it will hurt the Democrats (their base enthusiasm will go up, but only among the hard core) as they are going to take a even further left stance (see some blue governors, Senators, and Representatives recent public comments on the matter) than the middle sees how it should be and are going to be seen by the independents as just as extreme as some of the Republicans who want to impose a national ban.

[houndawg]

I couldn't give fuck all about Roe. If they give the rights to states, as the US Constitution specifies, then probably 35 (roughly) states will not change their laws whatsoever. If you don't like the laws made in the one you live in, move. Or, simply drive or fly to the state with the rules you like and get that baby yanked out of you. And it'll still be paid for by my tax dollars. I'll still be paying for your irresponsible decision-making, as I have been since my first paycheck.

So quit crying and clutching pearls. Nothing really changes, other than you may be inconvenienced by a couple of hours to go commit your little white murder.



Now, for real change, I'm hoping that SCOTUS rightly rules in the gun club's favor in the NY Rifle & Pistol v Bruen case. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to protect myself anywhere I travel, including the NY Subway, which is obviously a place people should be able to protect themselves and others from grave bodily harm. Nationwide concealed carry or bust.

He says as he snivels away about needing a gun because he's a the human version of Chuchundra.......

[Winterborn]

Now that men can have babies the SC may overturn Roe? That's some bullshit! Why does the SC hate men?

I found it funny that all of a sudden the people who were putting down people saying only women can have kids and using the term "birthing persons/people" all of a sudden started using the word "women" exclusively when talking about this court case.

So which is it? Can only women have kids? Why are we not using the inclusive term "birthing persons/people"? What about the fat folks that identify as pregnant?

So many terms/positions to keep track of.......

[Ibanez]

Now that men can have babies the SC may overturn Roe? That's some bullshit! Why does the SC hate men?

Wait a minute...wasn't the leftist joke for years that if men could have babies, abortions would be legal everywhere?

[kalm]

Now that men can have babies the SC may overturn Roe? That's some bullshit! Why does the SC hate men?

Wait a minute...wasn't the leftist joke for years that if men could have babies, abortions would be legal everywhere?

It’s of course still true and always will be. It was a Cleets line along with god is the number one serial abortionist in the world. Also true.

[kalm]

Your honesty is appreciated. I agree with you on your Snowden take. The women’s rights part being under-appreciated.

Sirota is spot on. The establishment left hates the progressives every bit as much as Republicans do. Bernie was polling way ahead of Trump in 2016. Part of Trump’s success was being perceived as a change agent. Bernie was able to win elections in Vermont counties that voted heavily for Bush. No way of knowing a Bernie v Trump outcome but it ain’t a stretch at all to see Bernie winning that one.

Here’s a cold take for ya that hasn’t really changed much since the 80’s.

Well, the fetus’s have had ZERO rights for about 59 years, so maybe it’s time to give them a turn in the barrel.

Cant. They’re not mentioned in the Bible….oops I mean constitution. Sorry. I didn’t make the rules.