Boatdrinks

I’d venture that the top 10 states also have a higher obesity rate than the lowest ones. Many of our health issues in America can be traced to our poor choices in diet, exercise, etc.

I agree 100% with the first point. I’m not - nor would I ever- advocate for everything being left to popular vote. I doubt many people would. Although we saw plenty of majority tyranny during the Covid hysteria of the last couple years and the left seemed just fine with that. They don’t seem too fond of the electoral college - another check- either. Still, we can tone down the hyperbole a bit. Most things aren’t a cause for concern whether they are explicitly named in the constitution or not. As for the second part, perhaps there is cause for some concern. Perhaps not. This is part of the beauty of our Republic: diversity between states. If one is not to your liking , move to an area where the overall mindset is more suitable. What exactly is the reason for legally recognized “marriage” anyway? It’s likely to encourage offspring, which may become future taxpayers. Is it rooted in religion ? Why would anyone not fond of religious ideas want for this? All things to ponder while deciding whether or not to live in say, Missouri or California.

It’s not interesting or surprising in the least. What method would you guess most people think ( though not always correctly ) is the easiest? Fastest? Not to disparage anyone, but let’s be realistic here. Ending it all isn’t exactly an act of bravery. Jumping off a bridge may not seem appealing. Still, it’s no reason to restrict gun access of law abiding citizens.

Yep. The lack of media attention on local news and radio has been noticeable. These outlets all read from the same script and that’s why public trust in them has diminished.

I did t say it was an inalienable right. Look, I’m sure everyone could come up with something they would prefer be specified in the Constitution. There is a procedure for amendment, and that’s as it should be. We can’t go down the slippery slope of having judges get loosy goosey with the rules for obvious reasons. We are the government , and there’s no push to get the law into our bedrooms. It’s worrying over nothing. That whole example you gave was a simple case of someone who should have let a sleeping dog lie. They decided to get the law involved where they didn’t belong. The result was the officials said “ you want us involved with this nonsense we will get very involved ! “ Pretty amusing stuff but not something most people should be concerned about.

We have many inalienable rights. I don’t think we’re asking for trouble with things that are rather obvious because WE are the government. Do we have to put every little detail in there when the entire basis of our Nation is freedom? No need for that level of paranoia. Thomas is in a sense saying “ clean up your books, you folks are a complete joke”.

If you believe that I’ve got a great bridge to sell you. We all know what really happened because we watched the lead up , and it was completely predictable when all attempts at security were disallowed. These witnesses were probably threatened with prosecution ( oh they’d get a fair trial all right ) by the dictatorship currently at the helm.

Again, his job is not to decide based on what he would prefer. Legislators should legislate, and the legislation should be removed from the books. We don’t need a constitutional right for all of our freedoms. These are ancient and outdated laws that very few ( if any) of the people would support. Since we the people ARE the government, there should be little danger of these kinds of laws becoming reality as our representatives are there to do our bidding. I’m not surprised some of these laws still languish on the books because no one bothered to see to it. That’s how insignificant they are. It seems it took a complete oddity of a circumstance to even happen. I’d still argue Thomas ‘ decision is the correct one. It’s just not the job of the judicial branch.

Imagine that! The WaPo fired up about foreign dictatorships.

Ahhh, well perhaps I spoke too soon.Maybe even more hilarious a scenario? Still seems like chicanery from an ex and perhaps that’s why the Police even bothered to charge them. I’m guessing the “ punishment “ was like an appearance ticket and a fine? Again I’d still say the courts decision was correct , but a better plan of action would be to take your lumps and pay the fine. Then pursue getting the law off the books , which it should be imo.

They witnessed this or just hearsay?From absurd to borderline hilarious. A gay lovers spat? ( no pun intended) Bizarro world that something like this ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. The more I hear about this the more I’d say they all got what they deserved. I don’t know the orientation of the ex, but all this was brought on by themselves. It very well may be technically correct, but no one would have known or cared. Sometimes it’s best just to shut the $@&! up. Now, it seems the law should absolutely be scrubbed , but I think the right decision was reached unless I’m missing something. I mean, the courts don’t write legislation.

Again, how did anyone know? I’ve read about laws still on the books in some states that outlaw anything but the missionary position. A seemingly toothless law that no one bothered to scrub from the books because this doesn’t take place in public.

One thing Go fund me has done is expose the surprisingly vile and disgusting character of so many of our fellow Americans. Very sad.

This is not surprising- bit it still amazes me that anyone believes the 2020 Presidential election was legitimate. These are exactly the policies that were in place in swing states , and the Dems fought tooth and nail against signature checking. When one group is against security measures that’s pretty much all you need to know about the results.

Correct. When you vote against tweets, you may be voting FOR terrible policy. Economic, foreign, energy etc.

That didn’t escape me , just surprised anyone cares at this point. Since these acts rarely take place in public I’m not sure how it’s enforceable 99.9% of the time .

Wild for sure. I don’t even want to know how these individuals were “caught” or charges brought. Seems like an ancient ( and ridiculous) law that was never scrubbed from the books. That’s Texas for ya.

I would agree with your opinion. I’m not aware of Thomas saying that these rulings should be revisited by the Court. However, I’ll take your word for it. I disagree with Thomas on that because almost no one in America wants to legislate against it in any way. It would be a complete waste of time.

A lot of outdated laws were probably on the books in many states at that time, and some may still be. I highly doubt these laws are ever enforced or even enforceable. Heck, Dems don’t want to enforce laws that actually affect other people and their property or physical well being. They’re too busy finding new ways to coddle criminals and hamper Police departments. I doubt there is any political will to legislate who can receive oral sex from whom. It’s just not something many people care about ; maybe they did when Leave it to Beaver was a prime time TV show. Abortion is a huge wedge issue and has been for decades.

I confess I’m not at all familiar with the case, so I cannot comment on it. As for Thomas, one could probably make a sound argument to that effect, but it wouldn’t mean it would/ should be outlawed. Countless “ disaster” scenarios that simply will never come to be can be imagined if one wants to. It seems a pointless exercise. Do you feel you have a “ constitutional right” to do whatever you wish, or just the freedom to do it?

It means there is no “ Constitutional right “ explicitly implied for a lot of things. That’s following the document. You are talking about a Supreme Court justice, who by design does not make law. Therefore he cannot “ Do” what you are describing. It’s not confusing at all. There is nothing to lose sleep over. Contraceptives are not going away.

Yep. The people are pretty much done with masks, but Democrat dictators and their minions believe in them forever. SARS2 is always going to be around, so they think masking is too.

Yes it would be to me and probably north of 90% of Americans. That’s why it won’t happen. Many ideas are extreme , but not explicitly banned by the Constitution. It doesn’t mean they have any chance of becoming law, because there is no political will by the people to do so. Condoms, the pill, plan B etc are still going to be around regardless of fear mongering politicians and their election year histrionics. We have representative government in the USA, so we generally don’t have to worry about dictators telling us what to do. Unless it’s a Dem telling us to wear a face diaper or get a jab.

I couldn’t disagree more. To some, following the directions as written may be “ extreme” , but it’s really quite the opposite. These appear to be very bad ideas. I doubt they would get enough support in very many states to actually become law. It’s in the hand of the people to make sure they don’t. Many horrendous laws and policies have been passed by Democrats in states they control though , so I guess anything is possible.

Many things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean they are easily banned or made illegal. It also does not create the political will of the people needed to do so. That a few extremists may exist on the fringes of our two major political parties doesn’t make such far fetched laws imminent.