Maxine Waters: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them”.

[Pete F.]

Sure boys, One day after the same six people on the SCOTUS declared that restricting guns in order to promote public safety and save lives is unconstitutional. Don't believe it when they tell you it's about life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure boys, One day after the same six people on the SCOTUS declared that restricting guns in order to promote public safety and save lives is unconstitutional. Don't believe it when they tell you it's about life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right tokown guns is explicitly in the constitution, the right to kill unborn isnt, and is in fact contraindicated by language that says a person can’t lose his life without due process.

Big difference.

It’s not the courts job to be popular, only to be constitutional.
it’s the legislatures job to be popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

20000 Americans killed by gun violence so far this year.

Harsh but irrefutable words from the dissent that go straight to core: decision "based on nothing more than the new views of new judges.The majority has overruled Roe & Casey for 1 and only 1 reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

20000 Americans killed by gun violence so far this year.

Harsh but irrefutable words from the dissent that go straight to core: decision "based on nothing more than the new views of new judges.The majority has overruled Roe & Casey for 1 and only 1 reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you know they didn’t do it because it was stupid law, but because or personal agenda. for a mind reader, you get a lot of stuff wrong.

it’s 10 pm and i haven’t heard a single legal
argument about why they were wrong. just whining that the left doesn’t like it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right tokown guns is explicitly in the constitution, the right to kill unborn isnt, and is in fact contraindicated by language that says a person can’t lose his life without due process.

Big difference.

It’s not the courts job to be popular, only to be constitutional.
it’s the legislatures job to be popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The right to own guns is not in the Constitution, it’s interpreted to be so by some from the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court released very few groundbreaking opinions on this until 2008 when they found the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to bear arms.
So now the same Court has decided that abortion is not a right because there’s not enough historical precedence and that unlimited gun rights are allowed building on a 2008 decision.

Just more proof that “originalism” is really cuz I wanna
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The right to own guns is not in the Constitution, it’s interpreted to be so by some from the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court released very few groundbreaking opinions on this until 2008 when they found the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to bear arms.
So now the same Court has decided that abortion is not a right because there’s not enough historical precedence and that unlimited gun rights are allowed building on a 2008 decision.

Just more proof that “originalism” is really cuz I wanna
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, there’s zero legal
argument that abortion is in there. zilch. and the left is terrified about having to debate this honestly in public because of how depraved it actually is. current science makes it look even uglier.

trump did this to you. let that sink in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

No Jim, science doesn’t back up anti abortion theory.

You better get used to the idea that every miscarriage from today forward will HAVE to be investigated for possible negligent homicide, manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, whatever your state calls it

Women are going to end up in prison for miscarriages. That's where this is going.

But checks and balances…

But legal precedence…

But political norms…

But compromise…

But settled law…

We heard a lot of feel-good rationalizations on our way to becoming Oceania, didn’t we?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No Jim, science doesn’t back up anti abortion theory.

You better get used to the idea that every miscarriage from today forward will HAVE to be investigated for possible negligent homicide, manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, whatever your state calls it

Women are going to end up in prison for miscarriages. That's where this is going.

But checks and balances…

But legal precedence…

But political norms…

But compromise…

But settled law…

We heard a lot of feel-good rationalizations on our way to becoming Oceania, didn’t we?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i said science makes it look uglier. Videos of late first trimester abortions show the baby physically resisting the instruments of the abortion. your side doesn’t want that out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

When you read Clarence Thomas’s concurrence, where he calls into question many other rights based on the fundamental right to privacy, remember that he testified unequivocally in his confirmation hearings that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When you read Clarence Thomas’s concurrence, where he calls into question many other rights based on the fundamental right to privacy, remember that he testified unequivocally in his confirmation hearings that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The other opinion very explicitly says that the ruling doesn’t apply to rights other then abortion.

There’s a solid legal
regiment for gay marriage and interracial marriage, the right not to be discriminated against.

There’s no defensible legal argument that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. it was a stupid legal decision.

You think it’s better for 9 unelected judges to decide these things for all of us, rather then we getting to decide through our state officials? you’re opposed to democracy?

Pete i’m a conservative living in CT. I made peace a king time ago with the family t that i won’t always get what i want. I do what i can, and i don’t even lose any sleep over it. I don’t like it obviously, but Im fine with it. It’s called democracy.

do you have any comment at all, about Maxine Waters’ language?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

As Roe falls, criminal defense lawyers sound the alarm about mass incarceration

with a criminalized abortion, the "victim" isn't pressing charges. They're fighting them.

Yep all these god fearing red states who have criminalized Abortion or the morning after pill people and have made laws to basically deputize those people in their rabid base to seek out and report these women killers or parents of Transgender children for child abuse! No facts required just a feeling or even less if the vote Democratic.

Keep telling yourself they are not come for gay marriage trans rights or birth control ( this case was only about 15week law but they moved the goal post). Thomas writing was for yard sale sign for those people and Thomas invited them to file lawsuits

But I love this one the best Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito writes in the draft opinion. He’s been on the bench since 2006 . But in 2022 he and Republicans stacked the court enough ( with clear dishonesty)with like minded justices to take this position..

His solo dissent in that 1991 case is a big reason conservatives are so enthusiastic

At issue in the case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was whether a state could force married women to notify their husbands before they obtain an abortion. The Pennsylvania Legislature enacted such a regulation in 1989, saying a father has a legitimate interest in the fate of his unborn child.


Alito voted to uphold it as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. He argued the rule did not put an “undue burden” on women, But when the case reached the Supreme Court in 1992, O’Connor and the court majority rejected Alito’s view and characterized the “spousal-notification” rule as an insult to married women. “Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry,” the court said in an opinion written in part by O’Connor. It is “repugnant to our present understanding of marriage” to permit the state “to enable the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife’s decision,” the court said.
Yep another devout Catholic were man is the boss


Jim there’s is noting to comment on what waters said .. only you and the your conservatives puppet masters

Are claiming she made a threat … it’s more likely because she’s Black ….

If I recall you defended .. video of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert saying she prays that President Joe Biden's days are few Psalms 109:8. Just another example of selective reading and claiming something was said or inferred . When clearly the words don’t back you up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

wayne, please point to where i claimed Waters threatened anyone?

She said “the hell with” one of the three branches of our government, and she called for people to defy a court ruling.

And you say that’s not worth commenting on?

And you blatantly lie and say i claimed she’s threatening people.

I lived with Roe being in place my whole life. It never caused me to have any mental breakdowns. But the pendulum
has swung as it always does, and the left is coming apart, as they always do when they don’t get their way

I claimed she threatened people. Again, please point to where i said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The other opinion very explicitly says that the ruling doesn’t apply to rights other then abortion.

There’s a solid legal
regiment for gay marriage and interracial marriage, the right not to be discriminated against.

There’s no defensible legal argument that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. it was a stupid legal decision.

You think it’s better for 9 unelected judges to decide these things for all of us, rather then we getting to decide through our state officials? you’re opposed to democracy?

Pete i’m a conservative living in CT. I made peace a king time ago with the family t that i won’t always get what i want. I do what i can, and i don’t even lose any sleep over it. I don’t like it obviously, but Im fine with it. It’s called democracy.

do you have any comment at all, about Maxine Waters’ language?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She’s far more of a realist than you.

Things have changed a lot since 1973. As a practical matter, it's a lot harder now for the government to block access to abortion.

So if states want to stop abortions – and they do – they're going to have to get a lot more invasive, and a lot more draconian, to do it.

The advocates of enforced gestation have at long last succeeded in stripping away Roe's Constitutional protections – only to find themselves in a world where, even after it's been outlawed, abortion care will still be available with a quick google search and a few mouse clicks.

Over half of all abortions are already done with medication that can be sent through the mail.

So, once abortions are made illegal, but most who seek abortion care are able to receive it anyway, are states like Texas and Georgia going to simply say, "oh well, we tried"?

To combat this, states are going to have to greatly expand the reach of their abortion prohibitions and the severity of the resulting punishments.

And they will likely try new ways to detect and investigate miscarriages – because every miscarriage is now a potential illegal act.

And that’s why MAGA states are no longer safe for women. Even women who would personally never have an abortion and oppose it. 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Women of child bearing age are at risk of being treated like criminals or accused of a criminal act.

Don’t claim it won’t, because it already has happened.

This radical court will strip the right to privacy from every American eventually.

As far as your claim that the left is coming apart, Americans are coming together to deal with this radical MAGA court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

pete you won’t comment on Waters’ remarks. You’re a coward.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete you won’t comment on Waters’ remarks. You’re a coward.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did, apparently you’re illiterate
Read what I wrote
She’s correct and you’re dreaming if you think that what the Supreme Court did will stop abortion in this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I did, apparently you’re illiterate
Read what I wrote
She’s correct and you’re dreaming if you think that what the Supreme Court did will stop abortion in this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’ve said 100 times that overturning Roe can’t have much practical effect. Abortions will be available in half the states. So we agree.

Therefore, there’s no reason for your side to act like the world
just ended, is there?

So every time the court rules in a way the left doesn’t like, they can go to hell? is that how it works?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’ve said 100 times that overturning Roe can’t have much practical effect. Abortions will be available in half the states. So we agree.

Therefore, there’s no reason for your side to act like the world
just ended, is there?

So every time the court rules in a way the left doesn’t like, they can go to hell? is that how it works?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They can be ignored at some peril.
You can’t imprison people for their thoughts yet and hopefully not in my state.

Next, the court will dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus on Monday.

This will push each state to have to implement its own wildly different environmental and regulatory regimes.

They're going to literally destroy the country.

In a country this polarized, leaving each state to do whatever it wants while keeping Congress broken and undemocratic by filibusters, gerrymandering and big money in elections, means the country will inevitably balkanize. Originalism is a path to national destruction.

Blue states will be providing corridors and safe havens for women, LGBT people and others, in shadows of the 1860s. Companies won't be able to have offices in some states. People won't send their kids to college in certain states. States will be constantly suing each other.

It all comes down to the fact that the compromises the Framers made to get slave states on board with a union were bad ones and led to a civil war. Reconstruction didn't last long enough. Jim Crow should have been demolished by force. This is the same #^&#^&#^&#^&, different day.

The "states should do whatever they want and the federal govt should have no power except what literally passes filibuster-proof through our broken, rigged, apartheid, and dark-money-drenched Congress & White House" crowd, if they win, will literally destroy the country.

Letting every state functionally be a country unto itself while leaving Congress rigged and broken is a horrifically bad idea. Republicans are literally destroying this country's ability to function as a unified whole.

All because some appointed people believe in the absurd originalist doctrine that claims
(1) we should ignore changes in social conditions or context
(2) we should trust politically motivated lawyers to interpret the contextual meaning of anything that happened 300 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wayne, please point to where i claimed Waters threatened anyone?

She said “the hell with” one of the three branches of our government, and she called for people to defy a court ruling.

And you say that’s not worth commenting on?

And you blatantly lie and say i claimed she’s threatening people.

I lived with Roe being in place my whole life. It never caused me to have any mental breakdowns. But the pendulum
has swung as it always does, and the left is coming apart, as they always do when they don’t get their way

I claimed she threatened people. Again, please point to where i said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Odd RR responds to your Thread

Looked to me like Jim started a post about the words of Maxine Waters & her call for violence……….
Silence …….

I didn’t see you correct Him .but now it’s not violence it’s about contempt of one of the branches of Government ..

You really don’t pay attention to the party that’s disrespectful to all 3 branches of government . But you don’t have much to say about them and the last administration behavior

Your just trying to create outrage we’re none exist

Please define your understanding of the use of defying the ruling ?

How would she or anyone do that in states who ban abortion, other than getting a back alley abortion

So how do you 2@ supporters comments every time gun control is mentioned. I hear a lot of stuff like over my dead body or they need to pry it from my dead cold hand

Or gun are to protect us from Government tyranny

For them it’s considered free speech

And their response is violence

it’s odd Water isn’t provided that same benefit of free speech to disagree with the ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Grosss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

So all Trump appointees lied in confirmation hearings and we shouldn’t be pissed they have now become political, I think women might upset some races after their constitutional right is stripped away.

[Pete F.]

If American women followed the Icelandic model

In 1975, women of Iceland went on strike for equal rights. 90% of women walked off their jobs & homes, shutting down the entire country. The men could barely cope. Five years later, Iceland elected first female President. Now Iceland has the highest gender equality in the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So all Trump appointees lied in confirmation hearings and we shouldn’t be pissed they have now become political, I think women might upset some races after their constitutional right is stripped away.

tell us the lie they told. none of them came close to saying they’d never overturn Roe.

Ginsburg started the precedent of refusing to promise how she’d decide a future hypothetical
case.

saying “i respect the law”, is nowhere near the same as saying “i wont overturn it.”.

it’s not a constitutional
right if it’s not even remotely implied in the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

tell us the lie they told. none of them came close to saying they’d never overturn Roe.

Ginsburg started the precedent of refusing to promise how she’d decide a future hypothetical
case.

saying “i respect the law”, is nowhere near the same as saying “i wont overturn it.”.

it’s not a constitutional
right if it’s not even remotely implied in the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The judges who overturned it spent a lot of time swearing how much they care about stare decisis and settled law and social impact and blah blah blah knowing they'd do this if they got the chance. That's activism, not "returning it to the political process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The the judges who overturned it spent a lot of time swearing how much they care about stare decisis and settled law and social impact and blah blah blah knowing they'd do this if they got the chance. That's activism, not "returning it to the political process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did they promise not to overturn it?

Should we not have overturned the Dred Scott decision?

Roe was a stupid, completely fabricated decision. The protection against illegal search and seizure, implies the right to kill a baby? Sorry, it’s stupid.

And Trump did this to you. Let that sink in, and you’ll hear your tin foil
hat getting tighter and tighter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Actually Jim, it was engineered by McConnell.

I’d also lay the blame on the worst CJ in SCOTUS history, John Roberts.
Under his watch, voter suppression from extreme gerrymandering, unlimited dark $ for candidates, overturning reasonable firearms restrictions, overturning Roe, & no ethics rules for compromised Justices like Clarence Thomas.

But this decision is much worse than Roe. There is no scientific or ethical or civil basis for the position that life begins at conception.
Religion is the only basis & our constitution forbids laws based on religious beliefs.

How’s your hero Trump doing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There is no scientific or ethical or civil basis for the position that life begins at conception.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LIFE
1.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

CONCEPTION
1.
the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.

CONCIEVE
1.
become pregnant with (a child).

[Pete F.]

You’re wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's not complicated.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually Jim, it was engineered by McConnell.

I’d also lay the blame on the worst CJ in SCOTUS history, John Roberts.
Under his watch, voter suppression from extreme gerrymandering, unlimited dark $ for candidates, overturning reasonable firearms restrictions, overturning Roe, & no ethics rules for compromised Justices like Clarence Thomas.

But this decision is much worse than Roe. There is no scientific or ethical or civil basis for the position that life begins at conception.
Religion is the only basis & our constitution forbids laws based on religious beliefs.

How’s your hero Trump doing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t have to be catholic to believe that Roe was wrongly decided based on what the constitution says.

Trump is my hero? No, but he’s my club with you, a very effective club.

Like most liberals, you’re too crazed with hate ( or perhaps too stupid) to differentiate between being opposed to abortion and being opposed to the way Roe was decided.

It wasn’t an opinion on abortion. It was an opinion on judicial activism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The judges who overturned it spent a lot of time swearing how much they care about stare decisis and settled law and social impact and blah blah blah knowing they'd do this if they got the chance. That's activism, not "returning it to the political process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

caring about stare decks is isn’t the same thing as saying a ruling can
never be overturned. it’s not activism. it’s common sense.

Sticking to the constitution is the exact opposite of activism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device