Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
26 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Showing child porn and printing out an anti abortion pamphlet are not the same thing, and an excellent question dodge from you.

What you should have asked, "If you owned a print shop and some pedos wanted to print up some kiddie porn pictures, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?"


I would print anything that is legal to print without care about my personal convictions. Similarly, I’d sell the cake to anybody for any event. My standard is pretty simple.

Posted
On 2/19/2022 at 4:54 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Oh look they keep breeding at elite institutions 

 

To follow up here: HLR will publish these notes from current law students and recent grads anonymously. Because HLR isn’t a tight ship the author has been leaked and he is a clerk for the Reagan appointed Judge Smith on the 5th circuit court of appeals. So in probably less than 20 years this dipshit who argues against free and fair elections, despite the nearly 150 unbroken years of somewhat free elections to determine the president, will probably be a federal judge. This was his anti democratic batsignal to the Republican legal establishment. 
 

more here:

 

Posted
1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These freaks ducking love killing people

 

The decision was written by Thomas so you know it's probably some really freaky shit in there.

  • True 1
Posted

I read most of that Harvard note referenced above, and more than anything it cemented my feelings that the constitution needs a serious overhaul and that anyone seeking to follow any kind of original textual argument should be immediately dismissed.

 

This line in particular sums up why:

Quote

This Note concludes that, though a hands-off approach carries risks for democracy, it is nonetheless required as a matter of textual fidelity.

 

OH! So we should risk democracy itself in order to better follow (what we think the) text of this old document intended.

 

Just insanity.

Posted
34 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The original cancel culture is the death penalty

 

fake news, all they had to do to not get cancelled was not do whatever they did that deserved the death penalty

Posted
1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I read most of that Harvard note referenced above, and more than anything it cemented my feelings that the constitution needs a serious overhaul and that anyone seeking to follow any kind of original textual argument should be immediate dismissed.

 

This line in particular sums up why:

 

OH! So we should risk democracy itself in order to better follow (what we think the) text of this old document intended.

 

Just insanity.


The constitution, read simply at face value, is not a good document for establishing the rules of governance in a modern nation. It is only remotely workable due to more than a century of jurisprudence that has re-wrote a ton of it.

Posted
1 hour ago, sblfilms said:


The constitution, read simply at face value, is not a good document for establishing the rules of governance in a modern nation. It is only remotely workable due to more than a century of jurisprudence that has re-wrote a ton of it.

Also conservatives largely reject the application of the 14th and 15th amendments in letter and in spirit. It’s a decent statement of rights but there are many who want to ignore developments since 1861

Posted
197xrjaz7466rpng.png
WWW.THEONION.COM

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

 

Still a classic.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Ricofoley said:

The groundwork is very, very obviously being laid to let state legislatures directly overturn the vote in 2024. Seems like it depends on what ACB does between now and then.

In retrospect it will probably look like the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine 

  • True 1
Posted
Quote

A lawmaker in Missouri has already been working this winter to get her state to pass legislation that purports to make it illegal for people from Missouri to go anywhere — Missouri, Illinois, New York, anywhere — to get an abortion. Legislation across the country restricting people’s ability to obtain abortions and obtain transgender-related healthcare, among many other topics, could be headed through a legal system with an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court setting legal rules for the nation.

Republican Missouri State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman has been introducing an amendment into the state’s House bills that would ban abortions in Missouri and bar people from providing abortions to Missouri citizens or residents or even helping them get abortions out of state, as first reported earlier this week by the Washington Post. The enforcement of this proposed ban, like Texas’ S.B. 8, would be through private lawsuits. The amendment serves as perhaps the starkest example yet of the changes the new Supreme Court majority has unleashed.

Although Coleman’s provision would seem to violate a lot of key constitutional principles — including the right to travel, federalism principles and traditional rules that states respect the laws of other states — a trio of law professors examining what the legal landscape would look like should the Supreme Court overturn Roe by June have concluded it’s entirely possible that such restrictions could be upheld by a majority of the current justices.

 

Posted

I mean...that can't be legal. A state has no power to dictate what can be done in another state. Can states charge you for crimes committed in a place outside that state where the actions are legal?

 

Edit - obviously the end-game here is to pass unconstitutional laws and then have SCOTUS baldly along partisan lines say they are constitutional.

Posted

Pretty sure the Missouri bill also bans terminating ectopic pregnancy, so if there’s any lingering doubt about whether or not these people are “pro-life” that should be the end of it.

Posted
2 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Pretty sure the Missouri bill also bans terminating ectopic pregnancy, so if there’s any lingering doubt about whether or not these people are “pro-life” that should be the end of it.

It does this explicitly! These idiots and freaks want to kill women and think you can just move the fetal cells from the Fallopian tube. Nope! You just kill the mother and the fetus!

Posted
3000.jpeg
APNEWS.COM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he's concerned efforts to politicize the court or add additional justices may erode the institution's credibility, speaking Friday in Utah at an event hosted by former Republican U.S.

 

Quote

“I’m afraid, particularly in this world of cancel culture attack, I don’t know where you’re going to learn to engage as we did when I grew up,” he said. “If you don’t learn at that level in high school, in grammar school, in your neighborhood, or in civic organizations, then how do you have it when you’re making decisions in government, in the legislature, or in the courts?”

 

There's a lot that really clicks into place about why the world is the way it is once you figure out that the most elite-educated, impeccably credentialed conservatives, are still all at the their core exactly the same as any other Fox News brain-poisoned grandpa.

  • True 1

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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