Hodad

When? Jeebus. When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, as established by the SCOTUS it was not unconstitutional. It was, in my view, not unconstitutional at the time of the drafting or now. The current court sees things differently, and they are empowered to create law through their interpretation. The court defines what is constitutional and those opinions have the force of law. That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Roe was unconstitutional. Well, no, it wasn't. This court thinks that it is currently, but it wasn't at the time. <-- This conversation, by the way, is the whole point of stare decisis. Instead of a steady constitution we have the whimsy of the court, blown by political winds. It undermines the entire notion of constitutionality, and doubly so when it turns back the clock against the general will of the governed. I mean, Clarence Thomas, of all people, has already set his sights on Loving and Lawrence based on the Dobbs nonsense. -- What's next? Overturning Brown v. Board of Education? I mean, geez, that's only been the law of the land for 70-ish years. Won't that Make America Great Again? 🙄 I did not say it was unconstitutional to overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded to a poster who said the the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional. Which is a silly statement when the definers of constitutionality defined it as constitutional.

I didn't suggest that Dobbs created fetal supremacy. I said that they were wrong to strip citizens of protection from states who would impose fetal supremacy upon its citizens. The constitution and the court exist to protect citizens from state overreach. And severe restrictions on abortion are nothing if not extreme overreach.

By "warped view" you mean you can't muster a counterargument. It's a fact that the notion of fetal supremacy creates a superclass with rights above and beyond born citizens--superior to born citizens. That doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution, nor is there any logical basis for it. And the Roe decision was right to protect citizens from states who would subordinate them in such a way. If this court were actually bothered by an expansive right to privacy they should be shitting themselves over the invention of this superclass. But, as I said, Dobbs didn't come from a place of reason.

I said "real sex education." You know, something relevant to the real world they inhabit today. You think the ol' nuts and bolts (so to speak) is sufficient to help today's youth successfully navigate through a vast sea of more explicit, more engaging--but generally unhealthy--information. I, on the other hand, think that's woefully naive, and that you're setting kids up for a lot of pain, failure and long-term harm. As the world changes kids will naturally face different challenges. Education should adapt to meet them. My reference to Ron Jeremy is just colorful rhetoric for an inescapable point: kids are learning about sexuality and sexual relationships from online pornography. If you don't give them an alternative, that's the only message that becomes the sole and authoritative source of truth. Trying to countreprogram with a pamphlet from the 50s is like fighting a forest fire with a squirt gun. And you want to talk about asinine rhetoric? You literally said that the pride flag was intended to "browbeat" people, lol. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is. It has a very narrow message, pride in one's self and tolerance. Again, if those ideas offend you, if you're outraged by a symbol of those ideas, then you have much bigger problems than a colorful flag. It does no harm to anyone. It does not claim supremacy. It does not make anyone "less-than." It is a simple affirmation for a long-marginalized and abused group. And yet it bothers you and you feel it's an act of aggression? Sorry, your privilege is showing.

Yes, it is today. It wasn't then. And that was one of Alito's points, but it's an entirely specious one. This court is guilty of egregious cherry picking. Not only did they wildly disrupt a longstanding status quo--which they all indicated they would not do during confirmation--but they did so so selectively as to remove all doubt about the religious motive underlying the change. Stare decisis? What's that!?! They could, almost shot for shot, apply Alito's shoddy reasoning to a whole trove of conservative darlings, but they won't, because this was never about reason. SCOTUS has never been infallible, but for most of its history it's managed to remain somewhat above the political fray. It was smart and deliberate and thoughtful and fair. Well, the shine is off that apple. Poor Roberts, despite his efforts, presides over a tattered shadow of an institution full of naked prejudice. Just one more institution Trump turned to crap.

The construction is a charter of negative rights. Nowhere does it say what you can do, Rather it is focused on what the state cannot do to you. It says you have rights to certain things that are inviolable by the state. But were in the Constitution does a non-citizen fetus have the right to the body, blood and tissue of a female citizen? It's great if a woman chooses to give of herself to grow a child. I'm certainly grateful to my mother. But it's a gift, not an obligation, and when a woman chooses not to give of herself then respect that decision. Don't enslave her, violate her privacy and sovereignty on behalf of a non-person, non-citizen. Don't elevate the possibility of a person above the interests of an actual person. That's just nuts. There's no logical way to arrive at that position. It's purely on faith.

Jeebus, that's some dark shit. Self identifying as a likely sociopath is probably good for her hopes at getting on the Trump ticket. -- If she doesn't perform well, I assume she'll request to be shot in the face, right?

Sorry, that's not how that works. The fact that is was a SCOTUS decision defines Roe as constitutional. For as long as it stood, it was constitutional. The Constitution didn't change its mind.

No it's very silly to say it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS determined that it was constitutional. That's why it existed. The Constitution hasn't changed in any relevant way. We just have a new batch of activist zealots on the bench currently who hold a different view of the Constitution. It can overrule prior decisions, but it doesn't erase that it was constitutional at that time. And yes, it's no coincidence that conservatives packed the court with Catholics who would be hostile to Roe not on logical grounds, but motivated by faith. I mean, my goodness he's talking about the quickening of the fetus but can't be bothered to mention the rights of citizen women to their own bodies? You won't find any mention of fetal rights in the Constitution, but somehow the government has more interest there than in the privacy and physical sovereignty of women citizens? Of course, that was the goal all along. And Alito's incredibly flimsy argument--and his gloating--reveal the charade. There were many articles at the time but this one is specific to his religious Easter eggs

Okay, so it sounds like you're dead set that kids should not have real sex education. Just let them figure it out with Prof. Ron Jeremy. That's fine if that's how you feel, but I hope you can see that it's reasonable for other people or jurisdictions to take a more practical approach. And no, the pride flag doesn't "browbeat" anyone. It's a message of self-worth and tolerance. That shouldn't be offensive to anyone. There is no undertone about straight people going to hell or being less-than. Again, if you're offended by messages of self worth and tolerance, a colorful flag is the least of your problems. I'm trying to empathetically imagine being outraged at people for being comfortable with their own sexuality and I just can't imagine how that works. By what mechanism? Do you feel so entitled to impose your views and values upon others that it's offensive to you when someone is proud of who they are. Is that like an incursion on your privilege?ockquote widgetblockquote widget

Lol, no, a majority of Americans DO NOT believe the election was fraudulent. Did you pull that little nugget out of your own ass, or dig it out of Trump's leavings?

No, it wasn't. This wonky court may have a different opinion, but it's silly to say that R v. W was unconstitutional. And this ties back neatly to our conversation about Christian nationalism. Alito's opinion was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma rather than reasoned jurisprudence or a conception of individual rights.

Yes, pity, for someone so detached from reality that they are still clinging to debunked nonsense years later. Whaaaat? You mean like overturning Roe v. Wade? Lol

So, this is your way of confirming that you do live under a rock. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Stop huffing glue. Biden took office in 2021, not 2020 Crime is not at "an all time high" lol (Where do you even come up with this stuff?) The opioid crisis was exploding under Trump as well. Blame fentanyl, not our presidents. Homelessness is not a new invention EVs are apparently your pet issue, but have nothing to do with anything right now. On the other hand, all economic indicators have vastly improved since Trump left office in disgrace.

Sure, I'll give you the short list of why I won't do that. 1. You're not citing a real case 2. Assuming you mean Brandenburg, it's not relevant. Even in the hypothetical, nobody was penalized for speech. Speech was simply used as a signal that the hypothetical individual merits scrutiny. (That should be common sense.) Now your turn. I'll give you a hint. Terrorism often includes violence, but it is more than violence. What is the end goal that sets it apart?

Why don't you go look up the definition of terrorism and get back to us.

^^ Sexual intercourse is a much smaller subset of sexual activity. And schools don't have any responsibility to teach puritanical values--no more than they have to teach creationism. You're welcome to do that at home, but schools have a responsibility to give kids the factual information they need to thrive and succeed in the world. You're welcome to debate what that information might be, and how it should be presented, but to discount it out of hand is pretty silly. You may have met a lot of people who wished you understood the basics of a proper blowjob.❤️ And your argument about the flags has now devolved into the absurd notion that a pride flag is intolerant of the intolerant. Bravo. Reductio ad absurdum, we have arrived!

Noooope. Other politicians who promote the ideals of Christian nationalism include Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, who justified his participation in the Jan. 6 riots in religious terms and who promised that “above all” he would “bring God back” to Pennsylvania. There’s Michael Peroutka, the Republican nominee to be Maryland’s attorney general, who believes leaders should “take a biblical worldview and apply it to civil law and government,” and who has said laws supporting gay marriage are null because they violate God’s law. There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.” And "Christians Engaged" wasn't rejected because they were Christian (see the many, many Christina organizations who have 501c3 status). They were rejected because the mission is perilously close to that of a taxable PAC. You would have to reasonably acknowledge that this is a grey area. But they were approved upon appeal. That's what the process is for. -- But if it's more fun to play the victim card, go for it!

Lol. The hypothetical woman in the hypothetical scenario essentially asked whether the bible would support assassinating the mayor for having a pro-choice position. You may think that's "just a question" and undeserving of scrutiny, but sensible people will disagree. I actually don't even think you believe you're making a reasonable argument. Of course people contemplating political violence should be investigated or watched. That's not really a question.

Awww, just give him the affirmation! Anyone who is 24/7 rage posting about the same handful of personal grievances is clearly very, very lonely. (Nobody wants to live with that!)

Great. Cheating wasn't an issue in the last election either. That's why you fools can't furnish even a shred of evidence, despite this being the most scrutinized election in history. That's why automated recounts and hand recounts and forensic analyses all came to the same conclusion. It's why Fox paid $800 million for lying about election fraud. It's why Trump was laughed out of court 60+ times. The worst part is that you don't even know enough to feel embarrassed by braying on about these baseless claims. You may not have my respect, but you do have my pity.

Bullshit. That's exactly what happened. A hypothetical story was presented in which a hypothetical woman was asking if the bible would justify violence in defense of life, and she's already identified a public target (mayor) as a threat to life. Of course that person should be scrutinized as a possible domestic terrorist. But you want to pretend she's being singled out and persecuted. Again, bullshit. Anybody talking about political violence should be scrutinized. There's nothing controversial about it. It's bad enough that you're up in arms about a hypothetical scenario, but if you take a closer look it's just you trying to normalize that which we once all believed was radical: open talk about committing political violence.

Lol. Illegals have never been allowed to vote in federal elections. Honestly, you're like a child. You don't understand even the basics of our electoral process, but you've picked a team and you're rooting for it like crazy! Voter fraud isn't a problem. It very rarely happens, and when it does, people get caught--because our system works just fine, thanks. Didn't stop Republicans from trying, but they got caught. Because the system works. -- Serial actually did a great podcast series about these events.

Nonsense. Religions jockey for dominance, not mutuality and tolerance. Central to those faiths is the idea that everyone else is wrong--and often damned to hell because of it. Hence why that dehumanizing tactic has been used for thousands of years to justify sectarian violence. Similarly the "pro life" flag is not a symbol of tolerance, safety or support. It says a LOT about the people who would fly it and their intention to strip women and girls of a fundamental right to choose. Both of those flags stand for the triumph of ideas in which someone else is the loser. They are exclusive. The pride flag is fundamentally different, in that no one loses. It is inclusive. And noooope, teens are definitely having more sex than you think--and the minority who aren't are still coping with the same challenges. They are literally bombarded with unhealthy sexual content. So, again, why shouldn't they have access to content that models healthy, sex-positive relationships? Are you having those conversations with your children? Do you sit down and tell Junior that you don't spit in mommy's mouth or step on her face when you are intimate? (Or maybe you do, no judgment between consenting adults.) But most parents aren't having that explicit conversation. So where are kids supposed to get the information to offset the dark fantasy world of porn? Shouldn't healthy sex be modeled as well? Consider that the world has changed and the information kids need might not be the information you had growing up. Or to look at it the other way, do you think a consensual cartoon blowjob is too titillating for these kids? Is it going to corrupt them, when Extreme Asian Backdoor Gangbangs vol 3 is just a Google search away. How do you think such a book is harmful?

Absolutely false. Allowing something to die is NOT the same as killing it. And what kind of sick fark would want to keep a brainless newborn on life support? To what end?