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

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

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.

[Ghost_MH]

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.

[Jason]

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. 

[Kal-El814]

True, true.

 

 

[marioandsonic]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

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

 Can't wait for them to pass a mandatory nationwide ban on abortion once Trump is back in the white house.

[Jason]

 

[marioandsonic]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

 

What's next, Loving v. Virginia?

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

 

What's next, Loving v. Virginia?

 

[Kal-El814]

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

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

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 

[Jason]

U.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean toward more public dollars for religious schools

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.

 

[Jason]

 

[TyphoidHater]

49 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

For fucks sake Dems, grow a pair and attempt to impeach this idiot

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

21 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said:

 

For fucks sake Dems, grow a pair and attempt to impeach this idiot

 

On what possible grounds?!?

[TyphoidHater]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

On what possible grounds?!?

 

Stupidity.......that run-on sentence is akin to Billy Madison's final answer

[johnny]

11 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

On what possible grounds?!?

the wade i know would literally kick her out the door 

[CitizenVectron]

Scotus has ruled that you can gerrymander on a partisan basis. So...impeach on a partisan basis, and remove her because she is right-wing. That's it. Raw political power is the only thing the right-wing respects, and if it's allowed then it should be done.

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Jason]

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Recite Questions In Perfect Unison After Accidentally Memorizing Same Lines From Federalist Society Script

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…

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

As a comment said: “unitary executive for me, major questions doctrine for you”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Oh look they keep breeding at elite institutions 

 

[CitizenVectron]

 

 

[mclumber1]

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

[CitizenVectron]

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.

[marioandsonic]

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!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

There’s gonna be so much bullshit that is going to explicitly allow bigotry it’s gonna make your head spin

[SuperSpreader]

15 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There’s gonna be so much bullshit that is going to explicitly allow bigotry it’s gonna make your head spin

 

As long as you don't offend Christians or Whites tho

[Guest]

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).

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

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.

[Jason]

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? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

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

[Guest]

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. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 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. 

Which gets more complex in this situation when there's a federal/state protected class (religious beliefs) vs state protected class (sexual orientation).

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

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.