US supreme court backs a handmaid’s tale

@techsouth said
When none of that happen, will you admit that you aren't good and comparing things?

The right wing SCOTUS majority in essence said the scope of our rights should be defined by what late 19th Century State legislatures thought ( Kavanaugh was rather explicit in saying so in his concurrence). If that standard is applied, it's hard to see how a multitude of important precedents survive like Loving (anti-miscenagation laws decided only 6 years before Roe), Griswold (contraception bans) even Brown v Board of Education. There were also laws in the same period banning women from certain careers; so virtually all court decisions banning sexual discrimination would have to fall.

Is a judicial philosophy that ould countenance such results really consistent with the Natural Rights underpinnings of the US?

@no1marauder said
The right wing SCOTUS majority in essence said the scope of our rights should be defined by what late 19th Century State legislatures thought ( Kavanaugh was rather explicit in saying so in his concurrence). If that standard is applied, it's hard to see how a multitude of important precedents survive like Loving (anti-miscenagation laws decided only 6 years before Roe), G ...[text shortened]... hat ould countenance such results really consistent with the Natural Rights underpinnings of the US?

So you believe that we need to fear that since Roe v. Wade fell (and still allows states to make laws that allow abortion), that interracial marriage may be come illegal?

Noted.

I don't have the slightest concern that will happen. Perhaps you'll rethink your perception on the inclinations of conservatives when this doesn't even enter seriously in the conversation at any time in the future.

No need to argue what might happen because anyone can say anything. Let's just see which of us two can predict the future better.

@techsouth said
So you believe that we need to fear that since Roe v. Wade fell (and still allows states to make laws that allow abortion), that interracial marriage may be come illegal?

Noted.

I don't have the slightest concern that will happen. Perhaps you'll rethink your perception on the inclinations of conservatives when this doesn't even enter seriously in the conversation a ...[text shortened]... ppen because anyone can say anything. Let's just see which of us two can predict the future better.

That's not quite what I said.

I said that IF the right wingers on the SCOTUS really meant what they said, Loving and other cases which overturned laws passed by State legislatures in the 1800s under those legislators understanding of the scope of our rights would have to fall also.

EDIT: Fun Fact: When Clarence Thomas married Ginni in 1987, somewhere between 43 to 48% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx

@mchill said
I don't disagree with this Shav, but would put a portion of the blame for this on the tens of millions of liberal or left leaning people who never (or rarely) bother to vote. If even 1/2 of these folks had gotten off their rumps and cast a ballot these last dozen years, this mess could have all been avoided. Hopefully this sends a strong message to them.

They (finally) came out for Biden, because they finally saw a threat to their lives that was Donald Trump.

I wonder if 25% of America (liberal women) will be enough to keep the wolves from our doors.

@techsouth said
When none of that happen, will you admit that you aren't good and comparing things?

It took 49 years to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The next steps will all be shorter, now that they know they can get it done through the stupidity of half of America.

@kevcvs57 said
Maybe not but the point is what’s to stop them.
Evangelical Christianity has taken over SCOTUS with the help of a minority POTUS and a morally corrupt GOP senate and is using it to curtail basic human rights like who you can marry, whether you can use contraception.
Isn’t that bad enough?

Exactly.

American Taliban, here we come.

@shavixmir said
Good grief.
Pro-gun, anti-abortion…

What’s next for that kangaroo court of republican appointed fukk-for-brains?

Illegalising vaccinations?
Reintroducing slavery?
Castrating gays?

There is something seriously wrong with the US. And you only need to read the red-neck led threads on this very fukking forum to realise it.

And just listen to them whine about how ...[text shortened]... big ball of fire. The world deserves to see that and you deserve to suffer it!

Moronic bastards.

I see.

And you are to be considered -what... a wise sage from the liberal wing??

@earl-of-trumps said
I see.

And you are to be considered -what... a wise sage from the liberal wing??

At least he has morals, something I see lacking in you control-freaks.

@kevcvs57 said
Maybe not but the point is what’s to stop them.
Evangelical Christianity has taken over SCOTUS with the help of a minority POTUS and a morally corrupt GOP senate and is using it to curtail basic human rights like who you can marry, whether you can use contraception.
Isn’t that bad enough?

How's this one:

Clarence Thomas Signals Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Rights at Risk After Overturning Roe v. Wade

Something to think about,



https://time.com/6191044/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception-abortion/

@averagejoe1 said
Can you answer me straight out, Shav? Would you, Shav, deny me the right to carry a gun on my person to protect my family and myself from the people who are in the News of Crime ln a daily basis?
Shav, I feel like retyping this because I feel you won't answer (with the obvious only answer) the question . Will you please ?

You know, maybe if you guys didn't act like dicks, you wouldn't have people trying to murder you and your family, like you guys seem to have this fear of. How about not listening to a-holes like Tucker Carlson?

Does anyone here think that I should not have a right to carry a gun to protect me and my family ?

@suzianne said
You know, maybe if you guys didn't act like dicks, you wouldn't have people trying to murder you and your family, like you guys seem to have this fear of. How about not listening to a-holes like Tucker Carlson?

The question was to the author of the thread. Proper protocol, please? And I for one do not watch Tucker.

@earl-of-trumps said
I see.

And you are to be considered -what... a wise sage from the liberal wing??

No he’s our court jester

@averagejoe1 said
Does anyone here think that I should not have a right to carry a gun to protect me and my family ?

“Should” is not appropriate terminology when discussing natural rights