Jump to content

The official thread of SCOTUS cementing the US as a theocractic fascist state.


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

I don't think this will do much until the pain is keenly felt.

 

Firstly, it may be the case that blue states find a way to effectively ignore the new precedent, and law enforcement might decide it's worth letting them do it, which will defray the effectiveness of the issue as a tool for political mobilization.  However, if the precedent is enforced in a more aggressive manner such that pro-choice blue states can't effectively circumvent it, and you have mass shutdowns of abortion clinics, prosecution of doctors, etc., then you'll see it galvanize the base and pro-choice centrists.

 

Or you could maybe have some high-profile event that acts as an inflection point--some woman being cuffed and thrown behind bars for trying to illegally terminate her pregnancy in a red state, whose story goes viral on social media.

 

But it won't happen by the midterms, IMO.  And how much of an advantage can the Dems realistically get from boosting turnout anyway?  It might help them win the presidency more consistently, but it's still unlikely they'll win the congressional margins they need with the maps drawn the way they are.  Turnout was historically high in 2021 and they still couldn't secure a filibuster-proof majority.

 

Long-run I think it's just one more step towards the eventual inception of the American version of the Yugoslav wars.  Layoff the hopium, it's a helluva drug.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 

I don't think this will do much until the pain is keenly felt.

 

Firstly, it may be the case that blue states find a way to effectively ignore the new precedent, and law enforcement might decide it's worth letting them do it, which will defray the effectiveness of the issue as a tool for political mobilization.  However, if the precedent is enforced in a more aggressive manner such that pro-choice blue states can't effectively circumvent it, and you have mass shutdowns of abortion clinics, prosecution of doctors, etc., then you'll see it galvanize the base and pro-choice centrists.

 

Or you could maybe have some high-profile event that acts as an inflection point--some woman being cuffed and thrown behind bars for trying to illegally terminate her pregnancy in a red state, whose story goes viral on social media.

 

But it won't happen by the midterms, IMO.  And how much of an advantage can the Dems realistically get from boosting turnout anyway?  It might help them win the presidency more consistently, but it's still unlikely they'll win the congressional margins they need with the maps drawn the way they are.  Turnout was historically high in 2021 and they still couldn't secure a filibuster-proof majority.

 

Long-run I think it's just one more step towards the eventual inception of the American version of the Yugoslav wars.  Layoff the hopium, it's a helluva drug.

 

I doubt a woman being arrested will galvanize anyone. Just wait until we have a Republican back in the White House and they start arresting doctors for performing abortions, even in blue states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I doubt a woman being arrested will galvanize anyone. Just wait until we have a Republican back in the White House and they start arresting doctors for performing abortions, even in blue states.

 

Yeah but once a Republican is back in the White House it's game over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Nobody should be surprised when states start gunning for IVF, birth control for females, etc.

all of these freaks and losers are on record that the only birth control that should be taught is abstinence so hell stopping the sales of condoms might be on the block too 

  • True 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason changed the title to The official thread of SCOTUS cementing the US as a theocractic fascist state.
BLEDO6PTCZLP7AH66XOORSAW3I.jpg
WWW.REUTERS.COM

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared ready to further expand public funding of religiously based entities, indicating sympathy toward a challenge by two Christian families to a Maine tuition assistance program that excludes private schools that promote religious beliefs.

 

  • Guillotine 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
ad072fd2ce3df345543575353c171fe2.png
WWW.THEONION.COM

WASHINGTON—With the kerfuffle leading to a brief cessation in oral arguments, Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch reportedly recited their questions in perfect unison Friday after accidentally memorizing the same lines from a script sent to them by the Federalist Society. “It seems to me such…

 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just now, mclumber1 said:

Compelled speech is the opposite of free speech, so...

 

In this case (as I understand it) "compelled speech" means being forced to provide service to all people. Without it, businesses could potentially refuse service to Black people, Muslims, etc. Specifically this case is about LGBTQ+ rights, but it's really the first step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

In this case (as I understand it) "compelled speech" means being forced to provide service to all people. Without it, businesses could potentially refuse service to Black people, Muslims, etc. Specifically this case is about LGBTQ+ rights, but it's really the first step.

 

We'll be back to Jim Crow laws in no time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious as to where you guys see the boundaries. For example, @CitizenVectron, as a semi-pro photog, are there events you would refuse to shoot? How do you determine where your conscience is burdened to the point you wouldn’t be OK doing it even if the underlying event were something legal?

 

Me, I have zero boundaries in regards to whose money I’ll take for my services and will do anything that is otherwise legal (like, I wouldn’t play kiddie porn during a private event just because some pedos were willing to pay to rent the theater).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am curious as to where you guys see the boundaries. For example, @CitizenVectron, as a semi-pro photog, are there events you would refuse to shoot? How do you determine where your conscience is burdened to the point you wouldn’t be OK doing it even if the underlying event were something legal?

 

Me, I have zero boundaries in regards to whose money I’ll take for my services and will do anything that is otherwise legal (like, I wouldn’t play kiddie porn during a private event just because some pedos were willing to pay to rent the theater).

 

Much like pornography, I'll know my boundary when I see it and it could very well be far short of the legal one.


For example, if I operated a store and someone came in wearing something that was pro-Trump/pro-Republican, not only would I refuse to serve them, but I'd insult them, their family, etc. on the way out.

  • Haha 2
  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am curious as to where you guys see the boundaries. For example, @CitizenVectron, as a semi-pro photog, are there events you would refuse to shoot? How do you determine where your conscience is burdened to the point you wouldn’t be OK doing it even if the underlying event were something legal?

 

Me, I have zero boundaries in regards to whose money I’ll take for my services and will do anything that is otherwise legal (like, I wouldn’t play kiddie porn during a private event just because some pedos were willing to pay to rent the theater).

 

But you'd play the kiddie porn for a private event if it were legal to do so? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

No discrimination based upon a protected class it isn’t difficult a concept. There’s your line. 


If you owned something like a print shop, and some Catholics came in wanting to print up anti-abortion pamphlets and to hand out at a clinic, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?

 

And to be clear, I’m not asking what the legal standard should be, I am asking you people as individuals with your own moral and ethical thoughts on where you fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

If you owned something like a print shop, and some Catholics came in wanting to print up anti-abortion pamphlets and to hand out at a clinic, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?

 

No, I would not only would I refuse to serve them, but I'd insult them, their family, etc. on the way out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...