How Far Will This Court Go?

[muppy]

I havent read the thread but just the overall gist of things gave me this crazy thought.

 

I used to scoff and laugh at the gun advocates when they in my verbage  would " clutch their pearls" over what I considered a waaaaay overreaction to any talk of compromise and gun control laws meaning "they want our guns" "They're gonna come for our guns"

 

I pooo pooed it as ludicrous that couldn't possibly happen.

 

But here we ae. The SCOTUS has the audacity to overturn Roe vs Wade  ...but if Im reading this correctly they re going to next go after contraception? Am I being punked right now? I Really REALLY hope so. I JUST made reference in a different thread how up until now that radicals had left that that ideology off the table for the most part. That would be a total game changer. You wanna know why? What's next?

 

SMH conception begins at *****. Register your testicles boys the "guvmint aka SCOTUS"  is seemingly going to go after   and YOU BE MADE ACCOUHNTABLE for every pregnancy ...its YOUR body they will want to go after next.   Mandatory DNA test , Financial responsibiity for said babies. In and of itself not bad. 

 

How's that feel MEN? 

 

vent/

[SCBills]

3 minutes ago, muppy said:

I havent read the thread but just the overall gist of things gave me this crazy thought.

 

I used to scoff and laugh at the gun advocates when they in my verbage  would " clutch their pearls" over what I considered a waaaaay overreaction to any talk of compromise and gun control laws meaning "they want our guns" "They're gonna come for our guns"

 

I pooo pooed it as ludicrous that couldn't possibly happen.

 

But here we ae. The SCOTUS has the audacity to overturn Roe vs Wade  ...but if Im reading this correctly they re going to next go after contraception? Am I being punked right now? I Really REALLY hope so. I JUST made reference in a different thread how up until now that radicals had left that that ideology off the table for the most part. That would be a total game changer. You wanna know why? What's next?

 

SMH conception begins at *****. Register your testicles boys the "guvmint aka SCOTUS"  is seemingly going to go after   and YOU BE MADE ACCOUHNTABLE for every pregnancy ...its YOUR body they will want to go after next.   Mandatory DNA test , Financial responsibiity for said babies. In and of itself not bad. 

 

How's that feel MEN? 

 

vent/

They aren’t going after contraception.  Just like they aren’t going after interracial/gay marriage.  These are fear tactics being used to rile up people now that Liberals realize they need to make known their abortion views without hiding behind Roe. 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, muppy said:

I havent read the thread but just the overall gist of things gave me this crazy thought.

 

I used to scoff and laugh at the gun advocates when they in my verbage  would " clutch their pearls" over what I considered a waaaaay overreaction to any talk of compromise and gun control laws meaning "they want our guns" "They're gonna come for our guns"

 

I pooo pooed it as ludicrous that couldn't possibly happen.

 

But here we ae. The SCOTUS has the audacity to overturn Roe vs Wade  ...but if Im reading this correctly they re going to next go after contraception? Am I being punked right now? I Really REALLY hope so. I JUST made reference in a different thread how up until now that radicals had left that that ideology off the table for the most part. That would be a total game changer. You wanna know why? What's next?

 

SMH conception begins at *****. Register your testicles boys the "guvmint aka SCOTUS"  is seemingly going to go after   and YOU BE MADE ACCOUHNTABLE for every pregnancy ...its YOUR body they will want to go after next.   Mandatory DNA test , Financial responsibiity for said babies. In and of itself not bad. 

 

How's that feel MEN? 

 

vent/

 

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.

[B-Man]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

 

 

Leftist hysterics.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, muppy said:

I havent read the thread but just the overall gist of things gave me this crazy thought.

 

I used to scoff and laugh at the gun advocates when they in my verbage  would " clutch their pearls" over what I considered a waaaaay overreaction to any talk of compromise and gun control laws meaning "they want our guns" "They're gonna come for our guns"

 

I pooo pooed it as ludicrous that couldn't possibly happen.

 

But here we ae. The SCOTUS has the audacity to overturn Roe vs Wade  ...but if Im reading this correctly they re going to next go after contraception? Am I being punked right now? I Really REALLY hope so. I JUST made reference in a different thread how up until now that radicals had left that that ideology off the table for the most part. That would be a total game changer. You wanna know why? What's next?

 

SMH conception begins at *****. Register your testicles boys the "guvmint aka SCOTUS"  is seemingly going to go after   and YOU BE MADE ACCOUHNTABLE for every pregnancy ...its YOUR body they will want to go after next.   Mandatory DNA test , Financial responsibiity for said babies. In and of itself not bad. 

 

How's that feel MEN? 

 

vent/

You're riled up early today, Miss Muppyet.  

 

I disagree with you conceptually about the court having the 'audacity' to rule on Roe v Wade.  It's no secret this has been a contentious issue and the question about whether or not the original ruling was appropriate has been around for 50 years. Our kind and benevolent representatives have had 50 years to clean that up.  Why haven't they?  

 

As for financial responsibility of a testicular vessel for a subsequently conceived and birthed person, I am unaware of any regulation suggesting 'It's not your financial problem, Chief, but nice pull.".   I think most rules and regulations suggest quite the opposite.   

 

In response to your question---I'm going to say this right now, Mup.  I am completely against testicular profiling or any 'stop, pop and frisk'.  I'd say "Out of my cold dead hands", but chances are it's going to end up that way regardless. 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Leftist hysterics.

 

 

 

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

Quote

in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

Loving peace isn’t a virtue when you aren’t capable of war. 

We will do fine. We will win 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Tit for tat.  Quid pro quo.  Now on to regulating the 2nd and that right.

 

Be consistent with the killing process.

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

We will do fine. We will win 

Prohibition always fail. 

[muppy]

39 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're riled up early today, Miss Muppyet.  

 

I disagree with you conceptually about the court having the 'audacity' to rule on Roe v Wade.  It's no secret this has been a contentious issue and the question about whether or not the original ruling was appropriate has been around for 50 years. Our kind and benevolent representatives have had 50 years to clean that up.  Why haven't they?  

 

As for financial responsibility of a testicular vessel for a subsequently conceived and birthed person, I am unaware of any regulation suggesting 'It's not your financial problem, Chief, but nice pull.".   I think most rules and regulations suggest quite the opposite.   

 

In response to your question---I'm going to say this right now, Mup.  I am completely against testicular profiling or any 'stop, pop and frisk'.  I'd say "Out of my cold dead hands", but chances are it's going to end up that way regardless. 

leo my point is this is a debate regarding abortion noone can argue it doesn't  take 2 to tango aka get pregnant. If the womens right to choose is being made illegal in some states then for me it is logical to look at this issue from both a female and a male perspective. What will ultimately be the ramifications to men within this decision.  Im trying to process all of this. The saving grace for me is this decision is not a national mandate and the states have the right to make their own determinations regarding abortion. Right now what I see is a court that when push came to shove they chose a path  to defend the rights of the unborn as opposed to the rights of women and their subsequent physical emotional financial and PERSONAL freedom.

Edited June 27, 2022 by muppy

[Gene Frenkle]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

They aren’t going after contraception.  Just like they aren’t going after interracial/gay marriage.  These are fear tactics being used to rile up people now that Liberals realize they need to make known their abortion views without hiding behind Roe. 

 

Clarence Thomas literally wrote that he wants to revisit those two specifically. Say what you want about Thomas, but he's never been afraid to lay out his agenda.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Clarence Thomas literally wrote that he wants to revisit those two specifically. Say what you want about Thomas, but he's never been afraid to lay out his agenda.

Like pubes on a can of coke.

[ALF]

Clarence says hold my beer 

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

• 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. 

 

No.  There was ZERO proof of coercion 

 

My kids are terrified to write on a topic the teacher doesn't agree with - can we sue the school district?  They feel coerced. 

 

You can freaking pray in public.  

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This guy is basically the definition of the people Jesus called out in Matthew 6:5-6:

 

 

 

 

The Bible also has several passages that will tell you essentially why we find Virtue signaling of the dumbest kind to be ridiculous - you do not broadcast your "good deed" to the world.  

 

Judeo-Christian Civilization.  It's what this country was founded in and meant to endure under.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, muppy said:

leo my point is this is a debate regarding abortion noone can argue it doesn't  take 2 to tango aka get pregnant. If the womens right to choose is being made illegal in some states then for me it is logical to look at this issue from both a female and a male perspective. What will ultimately be the ramifications to men within this decision.  Im trying to process all of this. The saving grace for me is this decision is not a national mandate and the states have the right to make their own determinations regarding abortion. Right now what I see is a court that when push came to shove they chose a path  to defend the rights of the unborn as opposed to the rights of women and their subsequent physical emotional financial and PERSONAL freedom.

I get that, Mup, but the issue is already considered from both the male/female perspective.  Respectfully, you're not raising an issue any guy with common sense hasn't considered prior to engaging in the tango (and you must have had some interesting days at the dance studio ).   Put another way, the argument that an unplanned or unwanted and significant, life-altering potential isn't something that take most men by surprise. 

 

I really struggle on this issue.   All I'm really trying to do as a voter and citizen is to be true to what I feel is right.  I know for me, I'm pro-choice up to the point I become pro-life.    

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

26 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

No.  There was ZERO proof of coercion 

 

My kids are terrified to write on a topic the teacher doesn't agree with - can we sue the school district?  They feel coerced. 

 

You can freaking pray in public.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible also has several passages that will tell you essentially why we find Virtue signaling of the dumbest kind to be ridiculous - you do not broadcast your "good deed" to the world.  

 

Judeo-Christian Civilization.  It's what this country was founded in and meant to endure under.  

 

 

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...

[Pokebball]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

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...

How do you make a kid pray to a religion they don't agree with?

[ChiGoose]

 

5 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

How do you make a kid pray to a religion they don't agree with?

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

[Big Blitz]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

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.

 

There is no difference.  

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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...

 

 

I've explained this 1000x.  It doesn't matter if they were active, devout, or practicing Christian. 

 

 

Were they Buddhists?

 

Were their beliefs forged in Hindu India?

 

Were their ancestors born and raised in China?

 

 

No.  They were of the Judeo-Christian World.  Their philosophies on government cannot be separated from their faith - regardless if they went to Church or not. 

 

They created a government that at its core understood that your rights come from God (whoever you think that is) and its the government's job to protect them.  

 

 

Any coach praying before a football game is not imposing ANY religion on anyone.  May some feel uncomfortable?  Sure.  Then fire the coach on grounds he makes kids uncomfortable.  You shouldn't be fired for praying.

 

 

Logic:

 

If you teach or coach at a school where every single kid on the team wants to do it - the Coach included - can they not pray?

 

If you answered no then I cannot help you.  

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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

How's the coach gonna know if the kid is praying or not?

[Big Blitz]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

How's the coach gonna know if the kid is praying or not?

 

 

No one cares.  

 

If 1 kid and his/her/they/whatever's parents object to a coach praying before a game - you tell your kid what I tell mine every time they encounter people of different beliefs or Faiths (if this was a Muslim coach for example), you stand silent and say an Our Father - in this example.  

 

If the Coach is trying to force you to convert - that's a different story.  

 

 

The Lesson here - our Society is filled with cowards, soft entitled babies, and morons.  

 

There was a recent event that proved this.  

Edited June 27, 2022 by Big Blitz