Posts: 10,375
Threads: 32
Likes Received: 5,802 in 3,851 posts
Likes Given: 7,942
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation:
24
07-23-2021, 10:07 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(07-23-2021, 09:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Golly gee, a sex-offender nominating another one orders the FBI to belay their investigation into the nominee advanced by the sexual predator who nominated Kavanaugh in the first place.
I'm stunned, startled, and surprised. No doubt the apologists will come out in force,
I read 'The Peter Principle' years ago and adapted it to management (which inckudes SCOTUS) as follows:
1. You have a perfect office. You need to hire a replacement for a retiree.
2. You make a slight mistake in the hiring. The new person has a flaw.
3. In all future hirings, that flawed person will always recognize a "similar person" and fight for his/her (I'm not quite ready to accept "their" as individual pronoun) hiring.
4. Those 2 people push hard and confidently for those like them.
5. The entire management level is soon occupied by similarly flawed people.
6. "Management" (previously viewed positively by workers) becomes a nightmare of failure or at least frustration.
Never argue with people who type fast and have too much time on their hands...
Posts: 6,984
Threads: 84
Likes Received: 3,559 in 2,334 posts
Likes Given: 2,364
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
26
09-01-2021, 03:29 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure.
Beyond outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, the Texas law, signed in May, would deputize citizens to file civil suits against abortion providers or anyone who helps facilitate the procedure after six weeks, such as a person who drives a pregnant person to the clinic. Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit — a bounty abortion rights advocates warn will encourage harassment, intimidation and vigilantism.
Mornin', everybody!
Is this sig thing on?
Posts: 23,581
Threads: 506
Likes Received: 29,512 in 14,092 posts
Likes Given: 6,494
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
41
09-01-2021, 03:54 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
See what happens when Fuckface packed the court with his nazis?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Posts: 3,510
Threads: 56
Likes Received: 5,026 in 2,210 posts
Likes Given: 2,760
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
28
09-01-2021, 04:02 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure.
Beyond outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, the Texas law, signed in May, would deputize citizens to file civil suits against abortion providers or anyone who helps facilitate the procedure after six weeks, such as a person who drives a pregnant person to the clinic. Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit — a bounty abortion rights advocates warn will encourage harassment, intimidation and vigilantism.
Mornin', everybody!
Considering that 12 States attempted to ban abortion from 6 weeks onward and were rejected by the SCOTUS, I doubt this one will hold either, especially with its vigilentism provision which are bound to be catastrophically dangerous. If it does hold, the US is officially filled with complete morons.
Posts: 2,862
Threads: 85
Likes Received: 4,776 in 2,061 posts
Likes Given: 1,552
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
25
09-01-2021, 04:48 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 04:02 PM)epronovost Wrote: ... were rejected by the SCOTUS, I doubt this one will hold either, especially with its vigilantism provision which are bound to be catastrophically dangerous ...
SCOTUS upheld this one.
The vigilantism provision makes nonsense of "standing" which SCOTUS has applied ruthlessly in all other contexts - plaintiff must show personal harm; cannot sue on behalf of others who may have been harmed - except here. This alone proves SCOTUS is a fully political body now, not a deliberative one.
Posts: 23,581
Threads: 506
Likes Received: 29,512 in 14,092 posts
Likes Given: 6,494
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
41
09-01-2021, 06:01 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Posts: 3,510
Threads: 56
Likes Received: 5,026 in 2,210 posts
Likes Given: 2,760
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
28
09-01-2021, 07:21 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 04:48 PM)airportkid Wrote: (09-01-2021, 04:02 PM)epronovost Wrote: ... were rejected by the SCOTUS, I doubt this one will hold either, especially with its vigilantism provision which are bound to be catastrophically dangerous ...
SCOTUS upheld this one.
The vigilantism provision makes nonsense of "standing" which SCOTUS has applied ruthlessly in all other contexts - plaintiff must show personal harm; cannot sue on behalf of others who may have been harmed - except here. This alone proves SCOTUS is a fully political body now, not a deliberative one.
It didn't upheld it from what I read. It didn't block it. It's still contested by the court and will be deliberated on soon.
Posts: 23,581
Threads: 506
Likes Received: 29,512 in 14,092 posts
Likes Given: 6,494
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
41
09-01-2021, 08:32 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
But in the meantime much damage will be done.
As long as poor people* suffer the rich motherfuckers who run this country do not give a shit.
* Rich fucks, like the mistresses and daughters of republiKKKunt hypocrites, will be flying to northern states to take care of their little "problems."
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Posts: 25,008
Threads: 47
Likes Received: 34,769 in 15,971 posts
Likes Given: 37,592
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
61
09-01-2021, 09:14 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 04:48 PM)airportkid Wrote: (09-01-2021, 04:02 PM)epronovost Wrote: ... were rejected by the SCOTUS, I doubt this one will hold either, especially with its vigilantism provision which are bound to be catastrophically dangerous ...
SCOTUS upheld this one.
I think they rejected an injunction against enforcement pending further litigation, rather than upholding anything ... yet.
On hiatus.
Posts: 7,262
Threads: 37
Likes Received: 8,002 in 3,935 posts
Likes Given: 3,009
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
34
09-01-2021, 09:44 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 08:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote: But in the meantime much damage will be done.
As long as poor people* suffer the rich motherfuckers who run this country do not give a shit.
* Rich fucks, like the mistresses and daughters of republiKKKunt hypocrites, will be flying to northern states to take care of their little "problems."
A lot of the "civil" lawsuit business will be easily done away with.
Supposedly, even if you talked to someone about an abortion you would be liable for $10,000.
No one will be able to prove when people talked, or that they *knew* they were assisting in the abortion, or what they talked about.
Even talking about the law itself could be seen as guilty behavior. It's all unreasonable.
It's a stunt, and if it isn't the backlash will be huge. But it does prove what assholes these people are.
Test
Posts: 12,153
Threads: 203
Likes Received: 13,378 in 6,561 posts
Likes Given: 13,140
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
37
09-01-2021, 10:38 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure...
Some women don't even know they're pregnant after 6 weeks from insemination.
If a couple is using a prophylactic why should she necessarily? In a lot of cases
alarm bells don't start until after her second missed period; maybe 8 weeks if her
cycle is irregular. Additionally, a lot of women get "spotting" even after they're
pregnant, which they misconstrue as a normal period.
It would seem that a lot of Texans are more stupid than even what a few admit to.
I'm a creationist; I believe that man created God.
Posts: 968
Threads: 10
Likes Received: 685 in 390 posts
Likes Given: 3,169
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation:
7
09-02-2021, 12:13 AM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
How many catholics are on SCOTUS now
And repugs love them. Every perverted one of them
I can remember the repugs and their campaign blitz when JFK was running.
" If he gets elected the pope will running the country "
All I know is that I know nothing
Posts: 25,008
Threads: 47
Likes Received: 34,769 in 15,971 posts
Likes Given: 37,592
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
61
09-02-2021, 12:15 AM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 10:38 PM)SYZ Wrote: (09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure...
Some women don't even know they're pregnant after 6 weeks from insemination.
If a couple is using a prophylactic why should she necessarily? In a lot of cases
alarm bells don't start until after her second missed period; maybe 8 weeks if her
cycle is irregular. Additionally, a lot of women get "spotting" even after they're
pregnant, which they misconstrue as a normal period.
It would seem that a lot of Texans are more stupid than even what a few admit to.
Worse than this, the bill has no exemption for rape survivors.
Between this, the laws restricting voting availability, and the legalization of unregulated open carry of pistols (after four mass shootings in five years with a total of around seventy killed!), in the words of a commentator on this morning's Texas Standard program, "I woke up today and we'd gone back a hundred years."
This governor and legislature need to go.
On hiatus.
Posts: 3,510
Threads: 56
Likes Received: 5,026 in 2,210 posts
Likes Given: 2,760
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
28
09-02-2021, 10:36 AM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 10:38 PM)SYZ Wrote: (09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure...
Some women don't even know they're pregnant after 6 weeks from insemination.
If a couple is using a prophylactic why should she necessarily? In a lot of cases
alarm bells don't start until after her second missed period; maybe 8 weeks if her
cycle is irregular. Additionally, a lot of women get "spotting" even after they're
pregnant, which they misconstrue as a normal period.
It would seem that a lot of Texans are more stupid than even what a few admit to.
Oh they know that. They just want women who have sex not for reproduction needs to be punished if they fall pregnant.
Posts: 2,161
Threads: 21
Likes Received: 2,614 in 1,198 posts
Likes Given: 11,855
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
35
09-02-2021, 04:05 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Hmm ... also under this law, a person who provides someone a ride to get an abortion (after 6 weeks) or, provides someone a couple hundred bucks to get an abortion (after 6 weeks), can be sued. And anyone can sue! It could be a pissed off ex or, some rando couple who want your foetus. Here's to the great TX baby trafficking scheme of the 21st century.
If this is the case ...
I think the person who seeks an abortion but is denied due to this law, should sue the state of TX for forcing her to carry an unwanted zygote to term & give birth against her will. She should be able to sue for financial ruin, medical malpractice, not to mention violation of her basic human rights, as well as civil rights.
Will this law be upheld, forcing someone to go to another state for this medical procedure? Yes. Yes, it will.
If so ...
If aunt Jane must go to TX, pick up her favorite 20 year old neice Connie, & drive her to a different state to get this medical procedure, shouldn't Connie be able to sue the state of TX for not providing proper medical care? Shouldn't aunt Jane be able to sue TX for travel fees & expenses?
Both Connie & Jane would be criminals under this law - even though aunt Jane may reside in another state!
Welcome to the Totalitarian States of America.
Anymore, I can't wait to leave this sinking ship.
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Posts: 1,368
Threads: 22
Likes Received: 1,759 in 806 posts
Likes Given: 915
Joined: Nov 2018
Reputation:
22
09-02-2021, 04:08 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure.
Beyond outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, the Texas law, signed in May, would deputize citizens to file civil suits against abortion providers or anyone who helps facilitate the procedure after six weeks, such as a person who drives a pregnant person to the clinic. Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit — a bounty abortion rights advocates warn will encourage harassment, intimidation and vigilantism.
Mornin', everybody!
If the Court does not overturn these laws, then it's justification for a violent revolt in states that enact it. This is Draconian levels of government control over a human being's body.
Posts: 7,262
Threads: 37
Likes Received: 8,002 in 3,935 posts
Likes Given: 3,009
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
34
09-02-2021, 05:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2021, 07:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-02-2021, 04:08 PM)Aegon Wrote: (09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure.
Beyond outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, the Texas law, signed in May, would deputize citizens to file civil suits against abortion providers or anyone who helps facilitate the procedure after six weeks, such as a person who drives a pregnant person to the clinic. Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit — a bounty abortion rights advocates warn will encourage harassment, intimidation and vigilantism.
Mornin', everybody!
If the Court does not overturn these laws, then it's justification for a violent revolt in states that enact it. This is Draconian levels of government control over a human being's body.
It's also inviting vigilantes who have not been harmed in any way, to get involved in cases in which they actually have no standing.
I do suspect the courts will toss out the law, and/or there will be organized boycotts of various states, but I am worried. The religious nut cases, such as Amy Barrett and idiots such as Clarence Thomas, cannot be trusted to put the law above their personal religious views.
The law is based on a lie.
Cardiac tissue spontaneously beats, even cut out and spread on a table with a charge applied.
There is no "heart" at 6 weeks. There are two tubes. Two tubes are not a "heart.
Around 50 % of human pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions. Are these fools going to sue their gods ?
Milestones in fetal heart development :
5 weeks : Two heart tubes have formed in the embryo. The two tubes fuse and blood flows through this tubular precursor.
6-7 weeks : Walls begin to form that will divide the heart into four chambers.
8 weeks : It sometimes is possible to see and hear the fetus's cardiac heart precursor beat in an ultrasound exam.
9 weeks : The four chambers of the heart are formed, but do not function as a human heart will after birth.
Birth : The opening between the atria, which allows blood to bypass the lungs in utero, closes, most of the time.
Conclusion : the "heartbeat" propaganda is nothing but spin from religitards, ... just like calling a zygote or fetus a "baby" ... emotionally charged dishonest language for effect.
Test
Posts: 23,581
Threads: 506
Likes Received: 29,512 in 14,092 posts
Likes Given: 6,494
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
41
09-02-2021, 05:14 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Quote:just like calling a zygote or fetus a "baby"
I prefer to refer to it as "a gob of goo." That usually causes their heads to explode.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Posts: 4,785
Threads: 82
Likes Received: 7,088 in 3,158 posts
Likes Given: 7,373
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
34
09-02-2021, 05:17 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-02-2021, 04:05 PM)Kim Wrote: Hmm ... also under this law, a person who provides someone a ride to get an abortion (after 6 weeks) or, provides someone a couple hundred bucks to get an abortion (after 6 weeks), can be sued. And anyone can sue! It could be a pissed off ex or, some rando couple who want your foetus. Here's to the great TX baby trafficking scheme of the 21st century.
If this is the case ...
I think the person who seeks an abortion but is denied due to this law, should sue the state of TX for forcing her to carry an unwanted zygote to term & give birth against her will. She should be able to sue for financial ruin, medical malpractice, not to mention violation of her basic human rights, as well as civil rights.
Will this law be upheld, forcing someone to go to another state for this medical procedure? Yes. Yes, it will.
If so ...
If aunt Jane must go to TX, pick up her favorite 20 year old neice Connie, & drive her to a different state to get this medical procedure, shouldn't Connie be able to sue the state of TX for not providing proper medical care? Shouldn't aunt Jane be able to sue TX for travel fees & expenses?
Both Connie & Jane would be criminals under this law - even though aunt Jane may reside in another state!
Welcome to the Totalitarian States of America.
Anymore, I can't wait to leave this sinking ship.
Taliban in Poland is already salivating when thinking about this fascist law.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.
Socrates.
Posts: 1,714
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 326 in 248 posts
Likes Given: 374
Joined: Sep 2020
09-02-2021, 06:12 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-02-2021, 04:08 PM)Aegon Wrote: If the Court does not overturn these laws, then it's justification for a violent revolt in states that enact it. This is Draconian levels of government control over a human being's body.
Good luck with that. Texas ain't Portland.
The following 1 user Likes Percie's post:
• Kim
Posts: 2,862
Threads: 85
Likes Received: 4,776 in 2,061 posts
Likes Given: 1,552
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
25
09-02-2021, 06:13 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Take the Texas law and without disturbing any of its other text replace the references to abortion with "consuming hamburgers". It should be blatantly obvious no such law could stand, but because it's about abortion SCOTUS is blind to the intrinsic absurdity of empowering anyone anywhere to sue anyone for having a hamburger. The only rationale SCOTUS has applied here is that abortion is in and of itself intrinsically wrong - which is of course what the anti-abortion zealots DO believe - but it is only as wrong as having a hamburger is wrong, legally, and constitutionally, which is not at all wrong.
The ACLU and others will hopefully in short order recognize the raw assault on basic liberty this law constitutes, entirely apart from abortion, and pierce it to death with every legal instrument before we're halfway through September.
Posts: 12,153
Threads: 203
Likes Received: 13,378 in 6,561 posts
Likes Given: 13,140
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
37
09-02-2021, 06:53 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Why is nobody concerned that the SCOTUS is loaded with Catholics?
Amy Coney Barrett,
Brett Kavanaugh,
Neil Gorsuch,
Sonia Sotomayor,
Samuel Alito,
Clarence Thomas,
John Roberts.
And the other two members, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer are Jewish.
Why no Protestants or Islamics or Buddhists, or no atheists? Is this
religious discrimination at its worst?
There are twice as many Protestants in the US population as Roman Catholics—42% v. 21%.
Why then is this not represented in the SCOTUS... in fact it's the exact opposite.
And what of moral decisions: abortion, contraception, transgenderism, gay marriage,
cloning, fertility, stem cell research, euthanasia etc?
I'm a creationist; I believe that man created God.
Posts: 9,308
Threads: 233
Likes Received: 18,114 in 7,069 posts
Likes Given: 13,961
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
42
09-02-2021, 07:24 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-02-2021, 06:12 PM)Percie Wrote: (09-02-2021, 04:08 PM)Aegon Wrote: If the Court does not overturn these laws, then it's justification for a violent revolt in states that enact it. This is Draconian levels of government control over a human being's body.
Good luck with that. Texas ain't Portland.
I live in Portland OR. The area that was in the news for so long is a small area of the city, about a block and a half sized area. I went to two BLM protests and it was peaceful and restrained. It was only later in the evening when the extremests from both sides came out of the woodwork and faught with each other. The vast majority of protesters were just marching and chanting. Most of downtown Portland is still beautiful and looks great. Just putting that info out there for you to know.
Posts: 1,714
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 326 in 248 posts
Likes Given: 374
Joined: Sep 2020
09-02-2021, 07:34 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-02-2021, 12:13 AM)Antonio Wrote: How many catholics are on SCOTUS now
And repugs love them. Every perverted one of them
I can remember the repugs and their campaign blitz when JFK was running.
" If he gets elected the pope will running the country "
You know that Biden and Pelosi are Catholic, right?
Posts: 9,308
Threads: 233
Likes Received: 18,114 in 7,069 posts
Likes Given: 13,961
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation:
42
09-02-2021, 07:37 PM
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-01-2021, 10:38 PM)SYZ Wrote: (09-01-2021, 03:29 PM)c172 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01...ban-508275
The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, potentially creating a new template for states to impose strict restrictions on the procedure...
Some women don't even know they're pregnant after 6 weeks from insemination.
If a couple is using a prophylactic why should she necessarily? In a lot of cases
alarm bells don't start until after her second missed period; maybe 8 weeks if her
cycle is irregular. Additionally, a lot of women get "spotting" even after they're
pregnant, which they misconstrue as a normal period.
It would seem that a lot of Texans are more stupid than even what a few admit to.
Many times women have spontaneous abortions without ever knowing their pregnant. If one is a Bible believing Christian and think "god has a plan" or is responsible for all things natural then that makes the biblical god the most prolific abortionist in human history. Probably several billion miscarried babies over history. The Official God Abortion Clinic. The Biblical god loves to kill stuff and Christians are hypocrites.
|