Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Farb]

Equal protection isn't about "celebrating any group over another". Just the fact that you say that shows how corrupted your view of this topic is.



The vast majority of people that do not fall within a protected class do not go on insistently about it the way that you do. So I'm led to believe that most aren't bothered by it the way that you are. So no, I can't see it and it doesn't undermine by entire narrative.



You seem to be making two arguments at once. One is that "everybody falls within a protected class", the second is that "how can protected classes not bother people who aren't in one." It's like your talking out of both sides of you mouth.



Just making things equal. Protected classes doesn't have anything to do with equity.

What would you call it then, normalization? Since we are in the LGTB thread, do you not think putting pride flags on our embassies in other countries for the sake of 'inclusion' is not a type of celebrating or moral colonization?

Why do you think that is? Who in their right mind would push back against a protected class? That would bring the state down upon you, would it not? Is that not the intent of establishing protected classes?
Since you dance around the subject of who is not a protected class, lets get to it.
Is a straight Asian male in a protected class? Sometimes would be my answer.
What about a
What about a white man? No unless he is part of the LGTB
What about a black man? Yes unless he is a republican according to Cori Bush.
What about a brown man? Yes (unless he votes conservative)

You can do the same for women and any other identity check box you want but would you agree that a straight white man is not a protected class?

Can you show me something in our system right now that is not equal? You can't, so this leftist push is not about equality, it is about equity comrade.

 

[Port City JJ]

What would you call it then, normalization? Since we are in the LGTB thread, do you not think putting pride flags on our embassies in other countries for the sake of 'inclusion' is not a type of celebrating or moral colonization?

Why do you think that is? Who in their right mind would push back against a protected class? That would bring the state down upon you, would it not? Is that not the intent of establishing protected classes?
Since you dance around the subject of who is not a protected class, lets get to it.
Is a straight Asian male in a protected class? Sometimes would be my answer.
What about a
What about a white man? No unless he is part of the LGTB
What about a black man? Yes unless he is a republican according to Cori Bush.
What about a brown man? Yes (unless he votes conservative)

You can do the same for women and any other identity check box you want but would you agree that a straight white man is not a protected class?

Can you show me something in our system right now that is not equal? You can't, so this leftist push is not about equality, it is about equity comrade.

what sort discrimination is a straight white man being subjugated to in America, a country who's political, economic, and business leaders are disproportionally straight white men?

 

[Saintamaniac]

It is ok. Don't sweat it. You and your ilk has called me worse than a racist and it doesn't bother me at all anymore,

I have called you a liar but you earned that moniker.

Did you ever remember the story of the boy that cried wolf?

Yes. I never forgot it. Thanks for asking.

I have said I understand the reason the protected classes were established.

Okay. So we've established and agreed upon the fact that protected classes were established because minorities were being denied the rights granted to them under the constitution by people in the majority...white people.

I don't think they are necessary at all anymore

You are wrong. The people who look like you continue to prove that by passing laws that attempt and are designed to deny minorities their constitutional rights.

I also think their creation was a mistake

How can you understand why protected classes were established AND think their creation was a mistake? Essentially you are saying that you think it was okay for people who look like you to deny minorities their constitutional rights.

Protected classes should not exist in a democracy. FULL. STOP.

Racism and denial of rights under our constitution should not exist in a democracy but here we are and we're only here because people who look like you can't/won't stop attempting to deny people their constitutional rights.

What was a better option? I am not that smart

Yes, we are all very much aware of this yet that doesn't stop you from saying it was a mistake. I guess that, in turn, does prove that you are indeed, not that smart.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Farb -
can you point to a system or government body, agency with historical policies of discrimination against straight white men (of which I am a member)?

How about a history of violence and domestic terrorism at places where straight white men pray or gather?

Or how about a time white straight white men were not allowed to vote? Or own property?

Hundred thousand brave Americans died to keep the traitor half of this nation from owning humans. Any of em straight white guys?

And then you add “aren’t needed anymore.” Yeah. Sure. I am certain nobody would discriminate if they were allowed to.

Which other laws do you think have done their part and now should just be eliminated?

 

[brandon]

Protected classes should not exist in a democracy. FULL. STOP.

America was a democracy when we had slavery.

 

[coldseat]

What would you call it then, normalization? Since we are in the LGTB thread, do you not think putting pride flags on our embassies in other countries for the sake of 'inclusion' is not a type of celebrating or moral colonization?

I'd call "protected classes" as protecting people who have been historically discriminated against. One has nothing to do with the other.

Why do you think that is? Who in their right mind would push back against a protected class? That would bring the state down upon you, would it not? Is that not the intent of establishing protected classes?

Why do you need to push back against protected classes unless you're discriminating against them?

Since you dance around the subject of who is not a protected class, lets get to it.
Is a straight Asian male in a protected class? Sometimes would be my answer.
What about a
What about a white man? No unless he is part of the LGTB
What about a black man? Yes unless he is a republican according to Cori Bush.
What about a brown man? Yes (unless he votes conservative)

None of that is true.

You can do the same for women and any other identity check box you want but would you agree that a straight white man is not a protected class?

If they are religious, as you are, then you're in a protected class. The the SC has been doing a lot of protecting of religious people lately, so you should feel very protected.

Can you show me something in our system right now that is not equal?

Yes, housing financing, environmental justice, disparities in prosecutions and judgements against people of different races and classes. Employment protections for LGBTQ+ people (in states without explicit protections, people can and have been fired at will for being gay.

You can't, so this leftist push is not about equality, it is about equity comrade.

I just did.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Are you sure people deserve dignity and respect only if you agree with them?

I never said that. Stop being so dishonest.

 

[SaintForLife]

I didn't say anything remotely resembling that. Anyone who thinks that is a serious question to ask is not in a position to contribute to the conversations had here on a daily basis.

My fault. I should have said does SCOTUS only have objectively when it doesn't have a conservative majority?

We didn't hear any calls to reform the SCOTUS, pack the court, or claims that the court has lost legitimacy until there was a conservative majority. I wonder why

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So you are back to the stawman that only religious people are anti-abortion?

My argument is that this is your religious stance, which runs directly counter to your claim that you have repeatedly asserted that you "understand this country is built upon religious liberty and that liberty also includes not living by my religion but by yours as long it doesn't break the laws of our society".

When you make any effort to enact and/or repeal laws or overturn rulings that prohibit someone from practicing their religion, you are forcing others to live by your religious rules, period.

I am not making a broad claim, which means I am not strawmanning anyone. Your argument displays either a complete lack of honesty or a complete lack of basic comprehension. Either way, it's pathetic.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

My fault. I should have said does SCOTUS only have objectively when it doesn't have a conservative majority?

We didn't hear any calls to reform the SCOTUS, pack the court, or claims that the court has lost legitimacy until there was a conservative majority. I wonder why

Still a ridiculously stupid question since I never frigging said that.

 

[MT15]

My fault. I should have said does SCOTUS only have objectively when it doesn't have a conservative majority?

We didn't hear any calls to reform the SCOTUS, pack the court, or claims that the court has lost legitimacy until there was a conservative majority. I wonder why

The SC has had a conservative majority for years, since 1970 the majority of SC justices were appointed by Republicans. So you’re just wrong.

No calls for reform until the SC got radically conservative, due to manipulation by Rs in denying Garland a hearing and then shoving Barrett onto the court while voting was actually occurring.

 

[SaintForLife]

Still a ridiculously stupid question since I never frigging said that.

I'm also hoping that John Roberts retires and Clarence Thomas resigns in shame in the next 6 months and tips the court back toward something resembling objectivity.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm also hoping that John Roberts retires and Clarence Thomas resigns in shame in the next 6 months and tips the court back toward something resembling objectivity.

Clarence Thomas is married to a woman who supported an insurrection and attempted to have a fair and free election overturned. I don't believe him to be objective in any way.

I have no problems with John Roberts. I may not agree with him, but I think he's principled and objective. I was using him as an example because I think the idea of Biden getting two nominations, including Chief Justice, would be a good way to make right the things Mitch McConnell broke. If it helps, I would be perfectly fine with Alito retiring or Kavanaugh getting caught having a drunken affair with Barrett, forcing both to resign in shame.

 

[MT15]

I'm also hoping that John Roberts retires and Clarence Thomas resigns in shame in the next 6 months and tips the court back toward something resembling objectivity.

This statement says nothing about “conservative” being the reason for lack of objectivity. As I said, the court has been conservative for many, many years.

If you cannot acknowledge that having a justice whose wife is active in planning to overthrow an election makes the case for a lack of objectivity, then that says a lot more about you than anything else. Also, said justice refused to recuse himself and was the lone vote against releasing records to the Jan. 6 committee. Clear conflict of interest, IMO.

Roberts is remiss in not holding Thomas to account and not pushing for the accountability for the person who leaked the Dobbs decision. Saying that one hopes to get rid of these two says nothing except that they are both not upholding their oaths of office.

You see everything in partisan terms, really.

 

[superchuck500]

Almost as if the Dobbs opinion is working as intended by letting each state decide?

Um, no debate here - that's clearly the result of Dobbs.

 

[MT15]

Um, no debate here - that's clearly the result of Dobbs.

Yes, but I thought the SC wanted legislators to decide. Not the courts.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, but I thought the SC wanted legislators to decide. Not the courts.

I would say that's a bit of a misread - the legislative process in the individual states must be checked against the state constitution (which requires the state courts), as fundamental element of lawmaking.

 

[Farb]

It’s clear. Not playing your games any more.

Obviously it is not. I have no idea what you want to address. Can you please tell me what I need to address?