Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

4 hours ago, wiffleball said:

I'm not telling you that I disagree. I'm not trying to be argumentative.

But, for example,how do you apply legal Nexus to a child allegedly conceived in New jersey, for a mother who lives in New mexico, and the father who lives in pennsylvania? And now the fetus resides in manhattan? But they intend to travel to Oregon for the procedure?

Why do libtards always have to come up with unlikely, stupid scenarios to make their point?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

“I think there was fraud in the 2020 election”

Liberal response. :  The courts have weighed in. You must acknowledge and accept their decision. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

12 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

From what I’ve seen from the media reports, fat white women and soy boys are very upset about this ruling. 

And Mooney 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

The Pope is so cowed and scared that he only gave a homily on the general notion of protecting life and the family and refused to direct address the issue of abortion.

 

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/vatican-families/2022/06/25/id/1076078/

 

 

 

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis celebrated families Saturday and urged them to shun “selfish” decisions that are indifferent to life as he closed out a big Vatican rally a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion.

Francis didn’t refer to the ruling or explicitly mention abortion in his homily. But he used the buzzwords he has throughout his papacy about the need to defend families and to condemn a “culture of waste” that he believes is behind the societal acceptance of abortion.

“Let us not allow the family to be poisoned by the toxins of selfishness, individualism, today's culture of indifference and waste, and as a result lose its very DNA, which is the spirit of welcoming and service,” he said.

The pope, noting that some couples allow their fears and anxieties to “thwart the desire to bring new lives in the world,” called for them not to cling to selfish desires.

“You have been asked to not have other priorities, not to ‘look back’ to miss your former life, your former freedom, with its deceptive illusions,” he said.

 

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

The Pope is so cowed and scared that he only gave a homily on the general notion of protecting life and the family and refused to direct address the issue of abortion.

 

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/vatican-families/2022/06/25/id/1076078/

 

 

 

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis celebrated families Saturday and urged them to shun “selfish” decisions that are indifferent to life as he closed out a big Vatican rally a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion.

Francis didn’t refer to the ruling or explicitly mention abortion in his homily. But he used the buzzwords he has throughout his papacy about the need to defend families and to condemn a “culture of waste” that he believes is behind the societal acceptance of abortion.

“Let us not allow the family to be poisoned by the toxins of selfishness, individualism, today's culture of indifference and waste, and as a result lose its very DNA, which is the spirit of welcoming and service,” he said.

The pope, noting that some couples allow their fears and anxieties to “thwart the desire to bring new lives in the world,” called for them not to cling to selfish desires.

“You have been asked to not have other priorities, not to ‘look back’ to miss your former life, your former freedom, with its deceptive illusions,” he said.

 

 

I'm confused. Did he talk about it or not? And even if he didn't why do so many ashiests care?  

"Francis didn’t refer to the ruling or explicitly mention abortion"

...

he has throughout his papacy about the need to defend families and to condemn a “culture of waste” that he believes is behind the societal acceptance of abortion.

 

[Reality 2,710]

2 hours ago, jonmx said:

I wish it was amazing how hypocritical the dems are, but it is really just standard operating procedures.  They sincerely believe there are two sets of rules which apply depending upon your party affiliation. 

Facts

[JustinCharge 2,397]

 

[KSB2424 3,082]

Personally, if picking a “side”.  I’m reluctantly Pro Choice.  I find it a necessary evil. However abortion *should* be rare and done early.  
 

But it’s turned into just another form of birth control.  There are no morals with a large group of these people.  Sickos. 

[weepaws 2,456]

33 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Personally, if picking a “side”.  I’m reluctantly Pro Choice.  I find it a necessary evil. However abortion *should* be rare and done early.  
 

But it’s turned into just another form of birth control.  There are no morals with a large group of these people.  Sickos. 

Necessary evil? What.  Rare and done early, yeah how early. A unborn baby as a heartbeat around 4-5 weeks, most woman don’t even know they are pregnant until about 2-3 months into the pregnancy, so how early is it ok to kill someone? 

 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

2 hours ago, weepaws said:

 

  

It’s considered double murder if someone kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child

EVERYONE agrees with this. Weird huh? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

Leftists claim that Clarence Thomas is going to push to ban interracial marriage now. He’s married to a white woman. Imagine being on the side that tells people that? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

The original Roe vs Wade was decided by all men.  6 of the 7 were white. 

[Voltaire 4,556]

30 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Leftists claim that Clarence Thomas is going to push to ban interracial marriage now. He’s married to a white woman. Imagine being on the side that tells people that? 

They deliberatly misinterpret what he said because that's what they do and know they can get away with it.

Justice Thomas made no mention on the merits and arguments of the various decisions he found controversial. He likely agrees with many, obviously the one for interracial marriages being the top of the list - and one he did not single out. He just points out that the federal court system has no authority deciding things that don't appear in the Constitution or federal law and these cases are to be handled locally by elected officials in the various jurisdictions.

I can't hardly blame him.

Also, Justice Alito doesn't agree with him. He went to great lengths to say inferred rights no explicitly mentioned in the Constitution do exist.... only that abortion is not one of them.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

13 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

They deliberatly misinterpret what he said because that's what they do and know they can get away with it.

Justice Thomas made no mention on the merits and arguments of the various decisions he found controversial. He likely agrees with many, obviously the one for interracial marriages being the top of the list - and one he did not single out. He just points out that the federal court system has no authority deciding things that don't appear in the Constitution or federal law and these cases are to be handled locally by elected officials in the various jurisdictions.

I can't hardly blame him.

Also, Justice Alito doesn't agree with him. He went to great lengths to say inferred rights no explicitly mentioned in the Constitution do exist.... only that abortion is not one of them.

But interracial marriage is protected in the constitution. Just like gay marriage is. Equal protection. 

[Cdub100 3,379]

All because liberals wanted to kill 9 month old babies.

Get focked baby killers.

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Leftists claim that Clarence Thomas is going to push to ban interracial marriage now. He’s married to a white woman. Imagine being on the side that tells people that? 

We discussed this earlier in the thread.  Most sane people don’t think interracial marriage is in danger.  Gay marriage however could be a different story

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

We discussed this earlier in the thread.  Most sane people don’t think interracial marriage is in danger.  Gay marriage however could be a different story

Why? Gay people don’t enjoy constitutional rights? News to me. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why? Gay people don’t enjoy constitutional rights? News to me. 

In the wise words of @jerryskids , “all precedent is settled law until it isn’t”

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

In the wise words of @jerryskids , “all precedent is settled law until it isn’t”

Jerry is smarter than both of us. But I have zero doubt that gay marriage is in danger.  Nor. should it be. And based on that I wouldn’t vote for anyone who threatened it . Even though it was the start of the slippery slope. Gay people shouldn’t be denied rights that everyone else has because of freaks. 

[Gepetto 982]

Why are any married people given different treatment then unmarried?  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

2 hours ago, Gepetto said:

Why are any married people given different treatment then unmarried?  

Reward for being a responsible person?

[jerryskids 5,188]

Read an article from the NYT courtesy of Yahoo about Roberts losing the court.

https://news.yahoo.com/june-24-2022-day-chief-141223397.html

The article itself was meh IMO, but what caught my eye was a comment:

Quote

rebecca

6 hours ago

Beg to differ marc. The Chief Justice (CJ) has four sets of responsibilities that set her/him/them apart from the other Eight Justices: (1) presides over public sessions, keeping discussion on track, ensuring equal time to both sides, etc.; more importantly, (2) presides over the Court's private discussions, harnessing the power & focus of the Court onto the issue at hand - example, the CJ can pause discussion on a case for days or weeks so a particular Justice can prepare and present more research/argumentation; which leads to an increasingly more important role, (3) deciding who writes the Majority Opinion if the CJ agrees with the Majority Opinion. In this case, Roberts tapped Alito, in an effort (my *guess*) here so the language would be tamer. The Majority Opinion is the official record of the Court not only on/about the case the decision affects but it's also the reasoning subsequent Courts will go to if it re-visits the issue down-the-road - it's Majority Opinions that are either upheld or over-turned in the future; and lastly and hugely important (4) The CJ presides over the entire Federal Judicial Court System (FJCS), an annual budget of over $5 billion with over 30,000 employees, that includes over 2,000 Federal Judges & Magistrates (bankruptcy judges, etc.). The CJ also picks the Chief Administrators of FJCS AND appointees members of "special courts" established as needed, including FISA Courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Courts).

I did not know this, and it explains why Roberts joined the majority but then wrote a concurrence which 98% disagreed with the decision.  He wanted to pick Alito to write it, not let it to Thomas.   

[Utilit99 4,099]

 Yeah, let's impeach all the ones that don't agree with the leftists. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-op-ed-lays-out-plan-discipline-supreme-court-response-roe-wade-decision

Roosevelt "threatened the supreme court" to get what he wanted, why shouldn't biden do the same? 

 

New York Times op-ed lays out plan to 'discipline' Supreme Court in response to Roe v Wade decision

NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie suggested packing the Supreme Court, impeaching justices, and more to punish the court for overturning Roe

 

The New York Times published an op-ed Saturday calling for Congress to ‘discipline’ the Supreme Court in response to the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote an outline of how Democrats could rein in the high court in a piece titled, "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court." 

"The Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system," Bouie wrote. He added that the "rouge" court "cannot shield itself from the power of other branches." 

Among the options Bouie listed were impeaching and removing justices and packing the court. 

"It [Congress] can impeach and remove justices. It can increase or decrease the size of the court itself (at its inception, the Supreme Court had only six members)," he wrote.

The White House confirmed on Saturday that President Biden opposes plans to pack the court. 

Bouie also suggested that Congress impose a supermajority requirement on the Supreme Court or "strip the court of its jurisdiction over certain issues."

"In the face of a reckless, reactionary and power-hungry court, Congress has options. The problem is politics," Bouie wrote. 

This is similar to claims made by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who said the Supreme Court ruling is "illegitimate" and called on supporters to take their grievances "into the streets." Bouie argued the Supreme Court has an "almost total lack of democratic legitimacy". 

"Despite the arrogance of the current Supreme Court — despite its almost total lack of democratic legitimacy — there is little to no appetite within the Democratic Party for a fight over the nature of the court and its place in our constitutional system," he added.

 

Bouie expressed admiration for President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he said threatened the Supreme Court into allowing most of FDR’s New Deal to stand. 

"For many Democrats, President Roosevelt’s attempt to expand the size of the court is less a triumph than a cautionary tale — a testament to the limits of presidential leadership and presidential power," he wrote. "But Roosevelt did eventually get a Supreme Court that allowed most of the New Deal to stand. The threat worked. The court was humbled."

"It will take time to build the kind of power and consensus needed to make significant changes to the court," Bouie argued. 

He continued, "But even the work of amassing that power and putting that consensus together can stand as a credible threat to a Supreme Court that has acted, under conservative control, as if it stands above the constitutional system, unaccountable to anyone other than itself." 

 

 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

https://rumble.com/v1a2ih7-leaked-call-with-inmate-reveals-sc-democrat-state-rep-and-senate-candidate.html

 

Maybe they just take over state houses and senates to do what they want 

[Voltaire 4,556]

My wife found this humorous exchange on the Chinese internet:

One person: In the future Chinese people will go to USA to deliver babies and Americans will come to China to have abortions.

Response: They can't the COVID lockdowns will keep them out.

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

14 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

My wife found this humorous exchange on the Chinese internet:

One person: In the future Chinese people will go to USA to deliver babies and Americans will come to China to have abortions.

Response: They can't the COVID lockdowns will keep them out.

 

This one is definitely over over my head. 

[Voltaire 4,556]

37 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

This one is definitely over over my head. 

There's always been a stream of upscale Chinese women who are 7- 8- month pregnant to go to the US to give birth because the Chinese are well aware of the US policy granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US. Every time I fly back to China from the US, there are 3-5 infant co-passengers onboard the flight. There likely would be many more, but both countries discourage the practice.

Here's one story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/hk-saipan-pregnancy-test.html

As for the other part, China has a zero-tolerance approach for COVID and is under super COVID lockdown. They've gone to extreme measures to keep it in check here, which is in some ways "great" since where I live, we really don't have any case since March 2020, but it's a blessing that comes at  great cost for the Chinese who live on the coast or in other communites where they get shut down completly for weeks whenever a (very minor) outbreak occurs.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

There's always been a stream of upscale Chinese women who are 7- 8- month pregnant to go to the US to give birth because the Chinese are well aware of the US policy granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US. Every time I fly back to China from the US, there are 3-5 infant co-passengers onboard the flight. There likely would be many more, but both countries discourage the practice.

Here's one story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/hk-saipan-pregnancy-test.html

Ahhh. I see.

[dogcows 1,029]

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this. Most people in America were just fine with the Roe compromise. But the GOP pandered to the subset of Republicans that are big into the “pro-life” thing. Even Trump has indicated that he thinks this is a mistake. 67% of women are against it. If you can only get 33% of women voting for you, you are hosed.

When AOC becomes president and passes the green new deal, universal healthcare, and amnesty for undocumented immigrants, you can point to June 2022 as the reason why. Forcing something this unpopular onto Americans is going to backfire big-time. I just feel sorry for the women that will die due to these laws in the meantime.

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, dogcows said:

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this. Most people in America were just fine with the Roe compromise. But the GOP pandered to the subset of Republicans that are big into the “pro-life” thing. Even Trump has indicated that he thinks this is a mistake. 67% of women are against it. If you can only get 33% of women voting for you, you are hosed.

When AOC becomes president and passes the green new deal, universal healthcare, and amnesty for undocumented immigrants, you can point to June 2022 as the reason why. Forcing something this unpopular onto Americans is going to backfire big-time. I just feel sorry for the women that will die due to these laws in the meantime.

[Voltaire 4,556]

19 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this. Most people in America were just fine with the Roe compromise. But the GOP pandered to the subset of Republicans that are big into the “pro-life” thing. Even Trump has indicated that he thinks this is a mistake. 67% of women are against it. If you can only get 33% of women voting for you, you are hosed.

When AOC becomes president and passes the green new deal, universal healthcare, and amnesty for undocumented immigrants, you can point to June 2022 as the reason why. Forcing something this unpopular onto Americans is going to backfire big-time. I just feel sorry for the women that will die due to these laws in the meantime.

The Republicans have been using this as a talking point all my life. Abortion isn't my issue and I'd have been happy with the status quo. The feminists had this one in the bag so far as I was concerned.

When the culture wars turned to Drag Queen story hour, trannies in the girls' room and women's sports, and other things, the feminists aligned themselves to the freak side. That caused the middle to shift and all the normal, decent people who were undecided on the issues had to throw in with the Pro-Life crowd. So congrats to Pro-Life, the manical-eyed pink haired lesbians are just going to have to eat this one. The bulk of the worst of them already live in California and New York anyways, so things'll stay the same.

[Bill E. 666]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:27 AM, listen2me 23 said:

This is how I feel.  Midterms were set to be a slaughtering.  They may still be.  But you have now opened the door.   People get distracted very easily.  

I myself don't give much care about abortion.    Make a sensible cut off point and let them have it.  I don't want weird late term abortions but other than that let them have at it.  

Agree 100%.  The Pitt pirates can blow a 5 run lead in the bottom of the 9th better than anyone but the Republican party.  The Dems had nothing to run on before this.  Economy, Border, inflation, oil policy, Afghanistan, nothing.  This gives them one thing to fire up their base.  i really think it will cost us the Governors race.  Two women I know say they will not vote for a single Republican now and both are disgusted with Biden and were leaning towards Walker and Kemp here in GA.  Not now and I'll bet there are plenty more.   

[Voltaire 4,556]

Just now, Bill E. said:

Agree 100%.  The Pitt pirates can blow a 5 run lead in the bottom of the 9th better than anyone but the Republican party.  The Dems had nothing to run on before this.  Economy, Border, inflation, oil policy, Afghanistan, nothing.  This gives them one thing to fire up their base.  i really think it will cost us the Governors race.  Two women I know say they will not vote for a single Republican now and both are disgusted with Biden and were leaning towards Walker and Kemp here in GA.  Not now and I'll bet there are plenty more.   

Same thing. HalfWit and the other two witches had nothing to run on in Michigan and should be out on their asses. This gives them a legitimate issue. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

I just feel sorry for the women that will die due to these laws in the meantime.

(For the states where abortion will become illegal) is there not exceptions for when the mother’s health is at risk?

[Voltaire 4,556]

27 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

(For the states where abortion will become illegal) is there not exceptions for when the mother’s health is at risk?

We're told that Michigan's (court challenged and on hold) 1931 abortion law is one of the strictest in the country and it has an exemption for life of the mother but not for rape and incest.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this. Most people in America were just fine with the Roe compromise. But the GOP pandered to the subset of Republicans that are big into the “pro-life” thing. Even Trump has indicated that he thinks this is a mistake. 67% of women are against it. If you can only get 33% of women voting for you, you are hosed.

When AOC becomes president and passes the green new deal, universal healthcare, and amnesty for undocumented immigrants, you can point to June 2022 as the reason why. Forcing something this unpopular onto Americans is going to backfire big-time. I just feel sorry for the women that will die due to these laws in the meantime.

Oh look. Liberals care about people dying now. That’s new. 

[nobody 2,037]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh look. Liberals care about people dying now. That’s new. 

They love to set policy over 0.0000000000001% of the population.  I mean they burned down businesses over 9 unarmed black felons resisting arrest getting shot per year.  

[Gepetto 982]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

(For the states where abortion will become illegal) is there not exceptions for when the mother’s health is at risk?

Name one medical condition that requires abortion to save the mother's life.

[Voltaire 4,556]

50 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Name one medical condition that requires abortion to save the mother's life.

They legitimately exist. Ectopic pregnancies, for one. That's where the fertilized egg attaches in the fillopean tube rather than the uterus.

My eldest was almost ectopic. The doctors weren't sure at first, but we were lucky that she'd attached just barely inside the uterus, ever so slightly beyond the opening of the fillopean tube. It was a really scary time.

[Voltaire 4,556]

12 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

They legitimately exist. Ectopic pregnancies, for one. That's where the fertilized egg attaches in the fillopean tube rather than the uterus.

My eldest was almost ectopic. The doctors weren't sure at first, but we were lucky that she'd attached just barely inside the uterus, ever so slightly beyond the opening of the fillopean tube. It was a really scary time.

Need help with something - The Geek Club - FFToday Forums

I dug up my old thread from when that happened. My goodness I was mess of worry.