1. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    30886
    25 Jun '22 12:41
    Violence popping up everywhere. Democrats will either be our rulers or they will destroy us.
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    25 Jun '22 12:45
    You're being stupid. Protests are not a coup. Violence should never be tolerated but neither should stupid comments like this one.
  3. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    142352
    25 Jun '22 12:51
    @vivify said
    You're being stupid. Protests are not a coup. Violence should never be tolerated but neither should stupid comments like this one.
    you are correct, if you are talking about YOUR comment, scotus rulings are not subject to change. What do you fools think? scotus will go back in session and reverse their ruling?
  4. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    30886
    25 Jun '22 12:54
    @vivify said
    You're being stupid. Protests are not a coup. Violence should never be tolerated but neither should stupid comments like this one.
    You somehow can't see the irony of this happening during Jan6 hearings.
  5. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    25 Jun '22 13:00
    @mott-the-hoople said
    you are correct, if you are talking about YOUR comment, scotus rulings are not subject to change. What do you fools think? scotus will go back in session and reverse their ruling?
    There are a number of possible political responses like Federal legislation codifying abortion rights or adding new members to the SCOTUS.
  6. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    142352
    25 Jun '22 13:44
    @no1marauder said
    There are a number of possible political responses like Federal legislation codifying abortion rights or adding new members to the SCOTUS.
    EXACTLY judge Thomas position. But what does this have to do with my statement?
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    25 Jun '22 13:53
    @mott-the-hoople said
    EXACTLY judge Thomas position. But what does this have to do with my statement?
    You were asking why the protests were being held, Mott. No, this SCOTUS won't go back into session and change their minds but the protestors are hoping to trigger political moves that would restore women's sovereignity over their bodies such as the ones I mentioned.
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    25 Jun '22 13:58
    @mott-the-hoople said
    you are correct, if you are talking about YOUR comment, scotus rulings are not subject to change.
    Yes they are. SCOTUS changed changed a previous Supreme Court ruling. There's nothing stopping them from changing it again.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    25 Jun '22 14:021 edit
    @techsouth said
    You somehow can't see the irony of this happening during Jan6 hearings.
    The Jan 6th hearings are about government officials like Donald Trump plotting to overturn the election. What does this have to do with random people protesting abortion being overturned?
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    251103
    25 Jun '22 14:07
    @techsouth said
    Violence popping up everywhere. Democrats will either be our rulers or they will destroy us.
    I think you got a LEGITIMATE PROTEST
    confused with JAN/6.
    No worry, just try to be better informed.
  11. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    25 Jun '22 14:07
    @vivify said
    The Jan 6th hearings are about government officials like Donald Trump plotting to overturn the election. What does this have to do with random people protesting abortion being overturned?
    Technically, abortion wasn't "overturned".
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    25 Jun '22 14:09
    @Mott-The-Hoople
    You must have just crawled out from under a rock. What the FUK do you think the original Roe V Wade was? You don't think they just CHANGED that?
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    25 Jun '22 14:10
    @no1marauder said
    Technically, abortion wasn't "overturned".
    The guaranteed right was overturned leaving the decision to the states.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    25 Jun '22 14:15
    @techsouth
    Funny how 70% of American's don't want us going back to laws of the 19th century but the zombie republicans have been working that for the last 40 years and finally got their desire but that is only the start, ban on ALL states abortion rights are next. Before or after that is the coming ban on even contraceptives, next single sex marriage.

    Right back where you and all your perverted zombies want us, firmly in the 19th century where women were at home barefoot and pregnant and didn't even have the right to vote, I would imagine that right taken away too, but it will be a moot point when the zombies also manage to destroy our democracy itself and make sure they rule forever.

    Yep, you are dancing in the street over this for sure.
  15. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    25 Jun '22 14:341 edit
    @sonhouse said
    @techsouth
    Funny how 70% of American's don't want us going back to laws of the 19th century but the zombie republicans have been working that for the last 40 years and finally got their desire but that is only the start, ban on ALL states abortion rights are next. Before or after that is the coming ban on even contraceptives, next single sex marriage.

    Right back where yo ...[text shortened]... y itself and make sure they rule forever.

    Yep, you are dancing in the street over this for sure.
    The dissent stated this eloquently:

    "Because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their
    bodies, the majority approves States doing so today. Because those laws prevented women from charting the course of their own lives, the majority says States can do the same again. Because in 1868, the government could tell a pregnant woman—even in the first days of her pregnancy—that she could do nothing but bear a child, it can once more impose that command. Today’s decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrees is a contested and contestable moral issue. It forces her to carry
    out the State’s will
    , whatever the circumstances and whatever the harm it will wreak on her and her family. In the Fourteenth Amendment’s terms, it takes away her liberty. Even before we get to stare decisis, we dissent.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf pp. 29-30 of the dissent

    Fans of "limited government"? Ha ha.

    In its last paragraph, the majority say "Abortion presents a profound moral question." pp. 78-79 In a society who's cornerstone is supposed to be Natural Rights, the answering of "profound moral questions" (at least where the rights of others are not implicated and the majority several times point out that they are not suggesting nonviable or even viable fetuses have rights) should be left to the individual, not the State. Those who defend this decision are not being true to the fundamental character of the nation that will suffer its consequences.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree