ChiGoose

That’s a good question. I haven’t been able to follow today’s hearing closely but they have testimony that he wanted the metal detectors removed from the capital. The point I was trying to make is that saying people should do something peacefully doesn’t negate all other actions taken to increase the likelihood of violence. People keep posting that quote like it’s a magic spell that prevents any culpability. All of that being said, the attack on the Capitol is not the only crime that they are looking into. Even if they find no link between Trump and the attackers, they have already exposed that he committed other crimes in the lead up to Jan 6th. So far it’s just the people who will testify under oath.

I planned to rob the bank with my buddies. And we went to the bank, and I said “go into the bank, peacefully” and then they went in and robbed it. Therefore, I am not guilty of anything.

Hey, don’t kink shame.

What are you even talking about? Are you high? We don’t know if Trump or people around him coordinated with the Proud Boys or the other groups. That’s literally what we have an investigation for: to figure things out. I don’t know if there is a link between them. But I do know that we now have plenty of evidence of Trump himself committing actual crimes. So there’s always that.

Late term abortions are generally people who wanted the pregnancy but find out news about the life of the fetus or the mother is in danger. They likely already have a name picked out and a nursery set up. A lot of these talking points make it sound like there are masses of people out there who go through all of the difficulties of pregnancy for 8-9 months and then suddenly decide on a whim they don’t want the baby. It doesn’t make any sense and the number of instances of this likely vanishingly small. EDIT: This all comes down to how you define “late term.” Given the tone of the discussion about people aborting just before delivery, I was thinking it was ~30 weeks. Apparently, 21 weeks is considered “late term” despite being before fetal viability. Abortions at 21 weeks represent just 1.3% of abortions but do not fit the scenario I outlined above. Link: https://amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage

I am a bit surprised it’s not someone higher up like Pat Cipollone given the urgency. But I’ve also seen reporting that she was facing credible threats so they wanted to lock her testimony in now.

The Texas stories are pretty recent and generally deal with their recent abortion law. What we are looking at is a debate about how competent state legislatures are at understanding the science and nuance around pregnancy. Given the examples and legislatures in general, it’s hard to feel optimistic about that.

Here are some examples based on current laws, laws pre-Roe, and laws in other countries to give an example of the potential dangers being faced here from lack of access to abortions or unclear / ambiguous abortion laws. Connecticut (pre-Roe): Woman dies from at-home abortion Washington (pre-Roe): Woman dies from botched abortion A different woman dies from a botched abortion At least 13 women died from botched abortions in the Seattle area between 1945 and 1969 Texas: Woman with ectopic pregnancy is turned down by doctors, drives 12 hours for treatment Patients who are miscarrying cannot get a pharmacy to fill their prescription Pharmacy will no longer provide methotrexate Woman has a miscarriage on wedding day but has to travel out of state for treatment Despite the fetus being incompatible with life, woman has to leave the state for treatment Malta: American Woman experiences partial miscarriage and has to be airlifted out of the country for treatment Poland: Woman dies in Poland after doctors refused to perform abortion when the fetus's heart stopped beating Another woman died in Poland after doctors were unsure if they could perform an abortion under the current law Ireland: Woman dies in Ireland during miscarriage after doctors refused to perform an abortion Nicaragua: Woman with ectopic pregnancy dies after treatment refused because of abortion ban Dominican Republic: Pregnant 16 year old with cancer dies after being denied treatment due to pregnancy Generally: Abortion laws complicate treatment for pregnant women with cancer Study finds states with more restrictive abortion laws had higher rates of maternal mortality Colorado study finds that banning abortion nationwide would lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths Avoiding these kinds of negative externalities requires very well informed legislatures who write tight laws with little to no ambiguity. Without any kinds of guardrails now, I sincerely doubt that is the world that women will find themselves in.

Thankfully, I live in Chicago, where we have had little issue getting treatment for my wife’s five miscarriages. But the experience has made me really read up on miscarriages, the law, and abortion. Her first miscarriage was ectopic and while I was in the waiting room while she got a D&C for a different miscarriage, I read an article about a proposed law in Ohio that would have required doctors to re-implant an ectopic pregnancy, a procedure that does not exist.

Please go talk to an OB. Or any expert in the field. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. That’s what it is, that’s what it’s called. The treatment for most miscarriages is an abortion to remove the tissue and prevent illness. Any law that governs abortions also governs miscarriages and they are no longer required to differentiate between the two. I have been living this nightmare for four years, believe me, I know what I am talking about. Seriously, just please either consult an OB or read any of the hundreds of examples that are easily available of women whose lives were endangered by a miscarriage because abortion laws interfered with their treatment.

Trump’s AG: The election was not rigged Trump’s Acting AG: The election was not rigged Trump’s Acting Deputy AG: The election was not rigged. Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel: The election was not rigged Trump’s Campaign Head: The election was not rigged Trump’s Campaign Lawyers: The election was not rigged Trump’s White House Lawyers: The election was not rigged Trump’s Daughter: The election was not rigged. @DRsGhost: They are all anti-Trump. I’ll believe legal geniuses like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell instead and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Firstly, please point to me in the Constitution where it indicates that this should be a nation built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Secondly, after repeatedly telling Kennedy to not pray publicly in while performing his duties as a state employee (while also trying to accommodate his religious need to pray), the District decided not to renew his contract after it expired because he would not adhere to school policy. Kennedy did not apply to be re-hired. Here is a scenario to consider: Biden hires a new White House Press Secretary who is a Muslim. Before the start of each press briefing, she rolls out a mat on the briefing room floor and prays to Mecca. While she does not explicitly say the journalists should join her, some do. Some because they are Muslim and they appreciate the opportunity to pray, others to fit in, and maybe some feel that they will have a better chance of getting their questions answered if they join in. Do you think this would be ok? I certainly don't.

If they feel pressured to do it because they believe it might affect their playing time or negatively impact their relationships with other kids.

Oh come on. I haven't even finished my notes on the last one and now they spring this on me?

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District was not about the right to pray publicly, it was about an endorsement of religion by someone acting in their capacity as an employee of the government. That is why the District was fine with him praying on the 50-yard line after people had left, and they tried to accommodate him to pray in private during school functions / hours. At least one parent complained that their kid felt coerced to join in even though they were not of the same faith as the coach. And if you can't see the difference between a kid not wanting to do an assignment and a kid not wanting to pray to a religion that they do not believe in, then I cannot help you. As to America being founded as a Judeo-Christian country, that would be quite the surprise to many of the founders. Especially the Washington and Adams administrations that negotiated and signed a treaty stating: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..." I guess maybe Washington and Adams weren't founders, so they wouldn't know...

If, after all of the evidence we have, the sworn testimony, the top of the DoJ and Trump's campaign all saying that the election was not rigged or stolen, you still believe in this crap, then you should throw your modem out the window and go touch some grass because you can't use the internet responsibly.

From noted hysterical leftist, Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in Dobbs:

We knew that Roe was in serious jeopardy last summer when the Court granted cert to Dobbs. The question was whether they would continue Roberts' preferred method of death by a thousand cuts, or just go whole hog and overturn it entirely. Roberts has lost control of the court. The right to contraceptives, as well as the rights of not just gay marriage, but simply gay relationships, are squarely in the crosshairs right now. Keep on eye on what cases SCOTUS grants cert to and that'll give you a heads up on when we may see movement on this front. Thankfully, they denied cert on a case to overturn Times v. Sullivan which means they aren't gutting defamation law yet, but I'm not totally up to speed on the other cases they might be considering.

Kennedy was not fire, he resigned The District had no objection to him returning to the field after everyone had left to pray Some students felt compelled to join in the prayers to stay connected to the team or ensure playing time This isn't a case about someone trying to pray in private, it's about someone who only would pray in public when there would be plenty of people to watch and potentially join in. This guy is basically the definition of the people Jesus called out in Matthew 6:5-6:

At least those three justices understood what the facts of the case were instead of just making them up to get to their desired outcome...

Pretty much all of Chicago is done with her, to be honest. I've never seen someone manage to alienate basically all groups. Cops hate her, but the anti-cop people also hate her; the teachers hate her but also I think CPS hates her. She won 73% of the vote in 2019 and there's a good chance she doesn't even make the run-off next year.

The 9th and the 14th amendments, generally. When the Bill of Rights was being debated, some founders opposed the idea, thinking that listing out rights would imply that anything not on the list would not be a right. It would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all rights people were entitled to, so any list would be inherently deficient. Such a list could also be used to curtail rights that were not enumerated in the document. This is where the 9th amendment and unenumerated rights come from. Unenumerated rights are simply rights that are inferred from other rights or laws that are more explicitly spelled out. The 9th Amendment, ratified with the Bill of Rights in 1789, reads: This is to combat the argument that the Bill of Rights is exhaustive of all rights and that any rights not appearing in any amendment are therefore not constitutional rights. The default position is that just because a right does not appear in the text does not mean it does not exist. Section one of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads (emphasis mine): This is where the Supreme Court finds a right to privacy for Americans and their right to make personal decisions about their family without intrusive government interference.

Not sure why you tagged me here, I haven't been active in this thread. Also, I don't live on this board, I have a life. I've spent most of today prepping my home for sale, but now I'm being called out for not responding to whatever this is? Fine. I think what the FBI did in Michigan was stupid. I think there's a fine line between having an informant versus entrapment and the FBI crosses the line too often. Not only did their actions blow up the case, but they also harmed Gov. Whitmer and her family.

1. Two types of people: those that believe the unanimous opinion and those that are skeptical. I honestly very much disagree with this take. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans do not spend their time thinking about politics. They are thinking about their family, their jobs, bills, (and The Bills for most on this board), etc. What news they consume is what is most convenient or what makes them feel the best. They are not especially well tuned in to the discourse and if you asked average people about Smollett or Covington, I would wager most would have no idea what you're talking about or have completely forgotten. I also do not believe that Democrats are inherently more susceptible to falsehoods than Republicans. For all of your examples, there are countless examples of Republicans believing ludicrous claims like JFK Jr. is still alive or Barack Obama is secretly still controlling the presidency. There was a very interesting story from Planet Money a while back about finding the source of some of the viral fake news on Facebook. They interviewed a guy behind a lot of it and he mentioned that he originally targeted both liberals and conservatives but the liberals didn't engage while the conservatives completely took the bait. I don't think it means that conservatives are inherently more susceptible either, but Democrats certainly do not have a monopoly on getting hoodwinked. I am also very wary of people doing "research" on the internet. Most of us are not trained to do research. When I am trying to figure out the efficacy of a particular COVID test, I cannot run clinical studies. I don't know how to interpret the p-value of a particular study. I just don't have that background and neither do the vast majority of us. I am not saying this of you in particular because I do not know you, but generally when I see someone saying "do your own research" on the internet, they are advocating a position that is demonstrably false. 2. Media Criticism in General I generally try not to engage in media criticism, but I'll dip my toe in for a moment. I think CNN is one of the main root causes of why everything in our politics is awful and I think Fox News is a truly, truly evil company. I do not watch television news because it is just empty infotainment designed to create an emotional reaction in the viewer that keeps them glued through the commercial break. I find that so many posts on PPP devolve into how the media covers things instead of the thing itself. While it is fair to criticize the way things are covered, it generally just ends up derailing the conversation. It also routinely ends up into straw man arguments where people end up arguing about what some outlet said instead of what actually happened. That being said, I do not believe the "mainstream media" is as much a monolith as you claim. Media outlets, especially television ones, are incentivized for revenue and will present what gets the most engagement. MSNBC targets people on the left, Fox Targets people on the Right, CNN targets shooting itself in the dick every day. Generally, I try to avoid looking at what the media says and instead look to what the principle actors are saying and doing. I care far less about what a media outlet says Richard Donoghue testified at the hearing than taking the time to read or listen to his actual words. 3. Democratic Party intentionally destroying America I have worked on a campaign or two, I have friends working in the government. And from that small experience, I can say that getting things done in the government is incredibly hard and complicated. Government is complex and it is chock full of rules and bureaucracy. People cannot generally snap their fingers and get something done. It often takes quite a bit of time and work to get something meaningful done, if you ever get it done at all. When Trump came into office and tried to institute the ban on travelers from Muslim countries, it failed twice before he finally got it done. Why? Because his advisors did not understand the rules nor the process. They were incredibly inept at administrative law, which resulted in them running into hurdles they could have avoided with better experience or knowledge. Look at Biden's whole Build Back Better debacle. You had the far left arguing for an incredibly expansive program while moderates were pushing for a much smaller package. They spent months arguing about it in private and public before it actually tanked. They blew up most of the administration's political capitol for absolutely no gain. At the federal level, the filibuster sets a very high bar to get most anything meaningful done. Even when Obama came into office with 60 votes, it was a mess for him to get the ACA across the line, and the effort cost them that power in the midterms. This stuff is really hard even for people who are good at it. The Dems are not good at it. For example, your claim that the Dems could pass a common sense abortion bill. That would require them getting rid of the filibuster, which they do not have enough votes for. You could argue that they could try to get GOP votes, but why in the world would the GOP senators do anything that would make the Dems look good? They would either propose poison pills or just not come to the negotiating table at all. In a two-party system with an election coming down the line, delivering a win for the other party just doesn't make sense. Finally, I have a hard time understanding what the point of the Dems destroying America through incompetence would be. Why wouldn't they just do it competently? 4. Pointing at each other and civil war I really wish we could break out of this "us vs them" mentality, but I am skeptical it can happen in a two party system in a world with social media and 24/7 news outlets. The easiest way to get someone to support you is to tell them that some "other" is bad and they will save you from them. In a two-party system, it devolves into anything the other team does is bad, therefore if they do something, it must be bad. But this is not exclusive to the Left. I have never heard anyone say "own the Cons" unironically but "own the Libs" is a common discourse from the Right. Even on this board, I frequently see people seemingly celebrating that Dems are not happy, as if their follow Americans are their enemies. This is why I try to avoid language that points at voters. I try to use "GOP" or "Republican officials" to make it clear I'm talking about party officials and electeds, not voters (though I am not perfect and probably have missed that at times). People vote the way they do for a variety of reasons and neither side is a monolith. While I do not think we're actually headed to a civil war (partly because the geographic breakdown would be more urban vs rural than a clean break of states), I think the best way to turn down the heat is to change our political incentives through electoral reform. We currently have a system that incentivizes candidates to move to the extremes of their parties to get elected. The Dems electeds are getting more liberal (look at the backlash to Pelosi endorsing Cueller) and the Republican electeds are getting more conservative (look at Elise Stefanik's ongoing shift from moderate to the extreme). There are a raft of electoral reforms I would like to enact that might solve this, but even something as small as outlawing gerrymandering nationwide would dramatically change the type of people being sent to Congress. Maybe if we changed the kinds of people going to Congress (on both sides), and incentivized them to actually *do* something instead of pandering for media, we could make some beneficial changes.

This one? Probably. Originalism is the jurisprudence of doing whatever the hell you want and then finding a reason to justify it.