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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

WDMSO, read this. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a big believer in abortion rights, but she had criticisms of the way SCOTUS decided Roe.

Being against Roe V Wade, and being against abortion, are not the same thing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/why...-of-roe-v-wade
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

He doesn't get, that the right isn't afraid of this, the right wants this, the right knows full well that abortion isn't going to be outlawed everywhere, many states will continue to offer it. CT will probably attempt to turn it into a tourism industry here.

"Come for the abortions, stay for the insurance!"

[Jim in CT]

interesting side effect, is what this means for Trump. Until monday night, i had held out hope that if he runs again, that there’s was a chance someone would beat him in the primary.

Now, there may not be any chance. He did this. The social conservatives will be worshipping the guy. if they werent already, there are now. He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn that had ever been in the white house. This cements that. Not saying he did it for noble reasons, he may well have only done this only to tick off liberals
more. but he did it nonetheless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

interesting side effect, is what this means for Trump. Until monday night, i had held out hope that if he runs again, that there’s was a chance someone would beat him in the primary.

Now, there may not be any chance. He did this. The social conservatives will be worshipping the guy. if they werent already, there are now. He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn that had ever been in the white house. This cements that. Not saying he did it for noble reasons, he may well have only done this only to tick off liberals
more. but he did it nonetheless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn

What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes

He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear . And if he thinks it benefits him the louder he gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn

What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes

He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear . And if he thinks it benefits him the louder he gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes"

Not sure how any human being could possibly conclude I believe he's sincere. In the post you replied to, I specifically said:

"Not saying he did it for noble reasons,"

So when I say that, you somehow conclude that I believe he's genuine? How?

You're either not very bright, or a liar. There simply isn't a third possibility. I specifically said, in a short sentence with very small words (8 words, 5 had only 1 syllable), that I question his intentions. And you believe I said the opposite.

Talking with you is a complete waste.

"He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear"

A con man makes promises, and then doesn't keep them. He delivered, he didn't just promise. Social conservatives have been asking for this for 50 years, and it took him to do it. Others promised to try, he did it.

Worth noting that liberals also asked for criminal justice reform for decades, and it also took Trump to do it. Obama had huge democratic majorities in congress for his first 2 years, he could have given liberals criminal justice reform in a day if he wanted to. Trump did it for them.

[wdmso]

The draft ruling renews debate over minority rule in the country

I guess I am not the only one thinking this

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The draft ruling renews debate over minority rule in the country

2:

Which is a better example of "minority rule"?

(1) 9 un-elected appointees deciding these things, or

(2) the American people getting to decide for themselves?

How will abortion be banned, in states where most people want it? If most people want it, they'll elect legislators who will vote that way. That's how our country works.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes"

Not sure how any human being could possibly conclude I believe he's sincere. In the post you replied to, I specifically said:

"Not saying he did it for noble reasons,"

So when I say that, you somehow conclude that I believe he's genuine? How?

You're either not very bright, or a liar. There simply isn't a third possibility. I specifically said, in a short sentence with very small words (8 words, 5 had only 1 syllable), that I question his intentions. And you believe I said the opposite.

Talking with you is a complete waste.

"He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear"

A con man makes promises, and then doesn't keep them. He delivered, he didn't just promise. Social conservatives have been asking for this for 50 years, and it took him to do it. Others promised to try, he did it.

Worth noting that liberals also asked for criminal justice reform for decades, and it also took Trump to do it. Obama had huge democratic majorities in congress for his first 2 years, he could have given liberals criminal justice reform in a day if he wanted to. Trump did it for them.

you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

"you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map"

I'm "all over the map", because I'm not a thoughtless simpleton.

You, like many people, think it's all or nothing. This is why you never criticize liberals, never agree with conservatives. It has to be all or nothing.

I see that life isn't that simple.

Trump is a disgusting human being, who nonetheless achieved some terrific policy results. And he had some dismal policy failures.

Unlike you, I can judge politicians on everything they actually do, good and bad. You can only see good in liberals, can only see bad in conservatives.

"your all over the map"

I am actually relieved to hear you say that. yes, I'm all over the map. Because even though you won't admit this, there are good ideas and bad ideas on both sides. There are god people and bad people on both sides.

It's confusing to you that I'm "all over the map". You are firmly planted on the left side of the map, with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

It's a good thing, not a bad thing, to be all over the map.

Trump gave conservatives a huge win with Roe, which conservatives wanted for decades. He also gave liberals a big win with criminal justice reform, which liberals wanted for decades.

Trump (1) is a disgusting individual, who (2) did do some things to help both sides.

Both of those things are true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

"Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama"

How on Earth, did Trump steal that nomination from Obama? He was a private citizen. Lord is he living rent free in your head.

I agree Garland should have been given a hearing (and then rejected). Here's what you won't admit...what McConnell did, was invoke the "Biden Rule", that's actually what it was called. When Bush Sr was POTUS, Biden famously said that if Bush tried to nominate a justice, the democrat-controlled senate should stop him. Biden said it, they call it the "Biden Rule". Now, the democrats never acted on that, but Biden suggested it was appropriate. What's good for the goose...

Also, the American people chose to give Senate control to Republicans at that time. They didn't do that, because they all wanted Garland to replace Scalia. Elections have consequences.

"and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law"

So in addition to macroeconomics, you're also an expert on Constitutionjal law.

There's no way you read that draft opinion. So you have no clue what their legal basis was. There are many legal scholars who believe Roe was wrongly decided.

"and lied in their confirmation hearing about it "

Show me video where one of them promised never to repeal Roe. They dodged a little for sure. Again, it was Ginsburg who set the precedent during her confirmation, she refused to get specific about how she'd vote on future cases. All others after her, have followed suit.

Do you aver answer any of my questions? Ever?

[wdmso]

Republicans won’t hold a vote in red states . Oddly the majority of theses states houses are you guessed it men .. and abortion is about votes

They fear a referendum vote on the topic so it will never been on the ballot..

And sorry Jim actually suppressing someone’s Rights isn’t just having an opinion it’s actually causing tangible harm to those who are being denied the right they held for 50 years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

a friend posted this. interesting

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

a friend posted this. interesting

"the unborn never make any demands of you".

Well, in that case, it's no burden asking pregnant mother to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption.

My god, man, where do you get this stuff. Do you subscribe to some low IQ lefty news service?

[wdmso]

An abortion costs about $400.

In the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal birth is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees. A cesarean section (C-section) is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 Who do you think pays for this?

if they have no insurance


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. 1 With an annual adjustment for inflation of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049.


Hard to earn a living trying to raise a child you weren't expecting and your choices were removed by people claiming they care .. then claim we are a welfare state

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

An abortion costs about $400.

In the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal birth is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees. A cesarean section (C-section) is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 Who do you think pays for this?

if they have no insurance


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. 1 With an annual adjustment for inflation of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049.


Hard to earn a living trying to raise a child you weren't expecting and your choices were removed by people claiming they care .. then claim we are a welfare state

i don’t value life with a financial
accounting.

anyone can go to a catholic hospital, give birth, and pay nothing if you can’t afford it.

lots of people make a good living while raising children. there’s also adoption.

again, all your side ever does, is focus on the mother. the baby is the other side.

can you discuss abortion from the baby’s perspective, for a sentence or two?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

a friend posted this. interesting

Not interesting as much as it is stupid. The unborn "never make demands of you." This "traditional pastor" must not have had a pregnant wife or pregnant parishioners. Babies in the womb make constant, 24/7 demands. That ranks as one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.

And "prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, widows, orphans, all get thrown under the bus for the unborn"--really? I've not seen this phenomenon. Whenever a woman gets pregnant all those groups are thrown under a bus? Wait . . . I thought this traditional pastor said the unborn "never make demands of you."

Sounds like this traditional pastor is demanding that his pregnant parishioners keep pouring money into his coffers for all those groups without detracting a bit for the expense of the babies in the womb who "never make demands of you."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That ranks as one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.
"

bingo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.
The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights. It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.
Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.
All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.
Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.
Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.

This is opinion masquerading as fact.

The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights.

It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How so? The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to murder.

The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.

Contraception prevents their being a third party.

All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.

Alito's opinion maintains the constitutional separation of power between federal and local governments. It more consistently maintains the integrity of the Constitution. And it doesn't outlaw abortion, or sexual intimacy, or interracial marriage, or contraception.

All rights are in jeopardy when left to the whim of Progressive interpretation. You, or who you're parroting, sound like a Progressive and would tolerate any SCOTUS decision that allowed whatever you prefer. Those things you listed are less "in jeopardy" by Alito's constitutional opinion than by a Progressive basis for constitutional interpretation regarding any of them when under the scrutiny of Progressive jurors who see the constitution as an ever changing, living and breathing, legal prescription whose main purpose is to uphold the power of the central government's desire to improve the lives of the people depending on what the experts of the day decide is currently considered "good."

Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.

Progressives like to have it both ways. Precedent (that they approve of) is sacrosanct and must not be overturned (until they deem it as musty remnants of old dead white men). But, on the other hand, the Constitution must constantly change to somehow suit the time.

Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "history and tradition" of constitutional separation of powers that limits the central power and gives more power to the states has had a bad name in the view of Progressives ever since their beginning in this country.

[wdmso]

yep that's about right

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

i said garland should have had a hearing. and then been rejected.

but, you know what the biden rule is. What McCinnell did, literally and exactly, was to enact the Biden Rule.

if it was swell for biden, please explain why it was bad for McConnell.

Spence here’s a very simple question. Do you think i oppose abortion because i want to enslave women, or because I’m a racist? or because i’d prefer babies be born, to their being slaughtered by the tens of millions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

so you wouldn't be upset, if they gave Garland a hearing and voted him down? That's a sincere question.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

Yup. Our government has been turning into a carnival of stealing. Stealing elections, the people's money and livellhoods, freedoms and rights--one big Progressive power grab filtering into the megaplex of power and control by the few who enrich themselves while distracting us with cartoonish entertainments to keep us reasonably happy as they pull the phony wool over our eyes.

[Jim in CT]

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device