I wonder if we would even have outrageous inflation and national debt right now if there were 65 million more Generations X and Y workers and consumers shouldering the burden of 72 million retiring Baby Boomers.
Personally, I gave the SSA people hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 40+ years. I also saved about 1/4 of that amount myself in a 401k... and THAT is what Biden's using up now to pay for his ridiculous borrowing/ spending levels through inflation. I can't possibly save money faster than he can borrow and waste it.
You can count on the overreach. DeSantis is already overreaching (on other issues).
Overall, this is healthy. Even liberal law experts said Roe was wrongly decided, and this kind of legal contortions, squinting just right and penumbras set a precedent where anyone could read anything into the constitution. I hope this puts a brake on that.
I also think the hysterical talk of banning birth control and gay marriage is also overheated panic.
Thomas made the argument they were wrongly decided, but somebody's gotta bring a case to even think of getting either banned, and before that, there has to be a law to challenge. Even among our current crop of idiots and zealots, I can't see any way a dense enough collection of them gets together to form a majority that would ban birth control, and banning gay marriage is a close second. Even if, by some crazy scenario that happened, the perpetrators would be voted out and the laws repealed.
I don't have a scenario mapped out, but don't you think a case before the Court could raise some of the same arguments as they did with Dobbs? Birth control isn't mentioned in the Constitution.....and it's debatable whether there is a "long and rich tradition" in our nation's history.
Elected representatives have even raised the ruling of Loving. Thomas ought to love that one.
Whether from the Left or the Right, I'm generally not optimistic where it regards the Liberty and Sovereignty of the Citizen. Very pleased with Bruen though, but that should have been a no-brainer, as even Justice Taney referenced the Right in the Dred Scott case.
There will be new cases when the Day-After abortificants get used in States in which abortion is illegal.... cuz we ALL know how liberals love stretching definitions... like "what is birth control".
Text of the "Pardon" Letter, sent to Mollie Michael -Trump’s assistant- by REP. Mo Brooks.
Dear Mollie:
President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz.
It is clear that deep-pocketed and vitriolic Socialist Democrats (with perhaps some liberal Republican help) are going to abuse America’s judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans with sham charges deriving from our recent fight for honest and accurate elections, and speeches related thereto.
As such, I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:
Every Republican who signed the Amicus brief in the Texas lawsuit against other states deriving from their violation of Article I, Section 4 (and, perhaps, other) provision of the United States Constitution.
Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions Arizona and Pennsylvania.
American simply cannot permit Socialist Democrats to abuse Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, United States Constitution and various federal statutes via their often-used strategy of abusing the judicial process via private organizations they fund or the prosecutorial arm they will soon control.
Thank you for your consideration.
As anyone with the comprehension skills and reading ability of a 3rd grader should be able to see; he was concerned that something along the lines of the January 6 Select Committee would descend into a Soviet/Nazi show trial. In view of the dual "impeachment" hearings; propped up with the totally manufactured "evidence" of the "Trump Dossier", that is exactly what happened!
But might not have been quite so 'separate and distinct" had, for example, any of the info Schiff promised hadn't been all lies. (by the way, has he been at all criticized officially for that?!..no) Not sure lying about a president either way isn't 'egregious'... I'm thinking that lie was pretty "against democracy!!!!" too.
lol! Separate events... same pattern... Uni-party partisans using DoJ/ FBI and Congressional Committees/ Impeachment powers to intimidate Republicans (Congress/ President) and punish anti-Progressive WrongThinke.
Likewise, Americans don't give a damn when Supreme Court nominees give an answer to a question on settled law....and then rule in the opposite direction. When the ruling is in line with one's opinion of course.
CI, No justice lied during their hearings. Indeed, a judicial nominee would be stupid and irresponsible to make a categorical claim. The ruling depend on how the case was argued.
Biden's speech after the Roe overturning was so shocking it almost brought tears to my eyes...seriously. For a sitting president to say the things he said was breath taking....despicable. What was the unity he'd promised? How about starting with "This is something I don't agree with, and I hope it changes, but we must accept this ruling from the greatest court in the land'? No, he threatened gay marriage, birth control!, blaming Trump that "these were HIS choices", told us Congress must make Roe "Federal Law"...and, above all, " This fall ROE IS ON THE BALLOT" OH, yes...he and Pelosi both mentioned that in their speeches after the ruling this morning....it's all about the VOTES, folks....No matter HOW one feels about abortion, this was a frightening, telling speech full of threat and mischaracterization...didn't feel good.
erratum - "Jan 6. Committee Hearings"... above. The SWAT Team will be knocking down your door before the papers requesting the recount even get submitted.
Golly Z, and just like that, a president "telling speech full of threat and mischaracterization" is frightening and brings tears to your eyes because it's "breath taking....despicable" and doesn't offer "the unity he'd promised"?
Oh, I don't know but maybe when he refuses to concede a legitimate defeat and uses Twitter to encourage white hate groups and mobs to no longer "stand by" and attack our Capitol in order to stay in power against the people's will?
I have enough virtue to not openly still support a man who lost the GOP, the House, the Senate, and the presidency, all in a single term and in the process, diminished the stature of the United States on the world stage, left unchecked the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence, and saw our own nation’s debt expand nearly as much in 4 years as Obama had in 8, who btw, was dealing with a crashed economy, Virtue isn't supporting a mafia figure thug who gave us 4 years of increasing civil unrest, ending with an effort to overturn the nation’s democratic process that culminated in a violent siege of the Capitol. You know, supporting a guy who is STILL telling the same damn lies that brought this about? I have enough virtue to not still support a guy impeached twice, and only avoided being found guilty by abusing his powers of office to obstruct the investigation, and then by intimidating members of his own party to rig the Senate trial. Virtue doesn't support a term of office that was a never-ending series of scandals; who's company faces criminal charges and he stands a fair chance of indictment himself, all while his PAC hauled in hundreds-of-millions that he can essentially use as he wishes, all while running an investment scam where the money is directed into a alternative media site that seems to be largely imaginary and who he has controlling interest in both.
Ronald...to hear a president mischaracterize and lie THAT badly , and dump an institution like the Supreme Court of the United States in the mud....mock, lie, exaggerate, prompt protests that he knows won't stay peaceful should make ANY American feel pretty worried for our country....that, to me, is a little tear provooking...absolutely. Then to hear Pelosi and him both use this whole mess as a way to get votes? Some "UNITY" he'd promised, huh?
Did you shed a tear when another POTUS did the same thing to the men and women of the Intelligence Community, believing rather, in the apparatus of the Kremlin?
After all the Russian Dossier BS with the tinkling hookers etc, all peddled by a foreigner, and our Alphabet Agencies eagerly gulping it down, I can understand how President Trump could end up felling some animus towards the Intel Establishment.
Trump made his comment's about the IC, as I recall, regarding Russia's very real attempts to interfere in American elections......not to be confused with the 'dossier'.
But the community certainly has gulped down misinformation from a foreigner in recent memory, aka 'Curveball'.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said the court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion deserves "great respect" but did not commit to upholding it in the future, senators said Tuesday.
The SCOTUS nominees didn't lie. But they also weren't truthful. Whatever happened to the 'black robed tyrants'? All is forgiven when they rule according to a certain opinion?
For full disclosure, though I would lean more towards choice, I don't necessarily find fault in this ruling. I'm certain that I will, were they to overturn some other 14th Amendment precedents.
Them making sweeping imminent domain rulings to hand someone's house over to a corporation (can't remember the name of the case) is bald-faced judicial tyranny.
This ruling doesn't come close. Abortion is still legal in the US, and as you stated above, this is not a simple matter. There is another life involved, and law throughout history has recognized that on various levels.
Silver has stated... "Abortion is still legal in the US."
True enough. Today. Yesterday Fmr VP announced his hope for a GOP Congress, Senate and President to permanently ban abortion across the nation. With Roe gone, does anyone here believe the GOP will be hemmed in by the little filibuster rule on this?
Silver has also said... "I also think the hysterical talk of banning birth control and gay marriage is also overheated panic."
Really? Was Justice Thomas overheated when he, in his written concurrence, asked for a challenge to Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell, all based on the same right to privacy and precedent that SCOTUS struck down yesterday.
Thomas is asking for challenges to laws that made it legal on a national level to use birth control in the privacy of your home, engage in sodomy, either as a homosexual or a heterosexual and for people to marry the man or woman of their choice.
The only other significant ruling based on the same precedents he failed to mention and call for a challenge was Loving, the one that made his marriage to his wife legal.
Call me cynical, but I find it amazing that Justice Thomas, not known for overheated rhetoric, would avoid the one ruling in this line of legal line of thought that might touch his life.
Sorry Silver, I am not at all certain we will not see action on these fronts soon. And a lot of willing conservatives ready to support it.
Are you admitting that the only case Thomas needs to recuse himself on in the future is "Loving" to satisfy your objections? Good to know. Should all the current women justices have recused themselves on Roe?
"Did conservative Supreme Court Justices lie about Roe during their hearings?"
To those like me and you who no longer had a say? On their free airtime auditions and commercials on Fox News? Well, perhaps not but they certainly gave an alternate impression.
How about to Susan Collins who indeed had a say, if not thee say? She said yes.
It's kinda hard to downplay the reality of other rights being "overheated" when Justice Thomas clearly and calmly invites them.
Abortion has never been an issue with me other than perhaps the political ramifications of it. Rich kids can still simply party and abort with ease while poor raped kids, well, not so much.
But anyway, could be a factor in Michigan and Wisconsin in Nov 8. And with gay and interracial marriages, contraceptives, and the thought of state police kicking down the door and hauling your wife off for giving you a bj is on the chopping block, there's a lot there for Dems to use-if of course they're smart and savvy enough.
The dreams of those who favour "positive liberties" always become nightmares for those who favoured the "negative liberty" and limits to government like our Founders.
"I need a medical intervention to remedy the problems of my own promiscuity."
Ronnie - "Quick, let's the CDC to work on an abortion procedure. We'll also decaffeinate your coffee and sacharinnize your soda for weight control...."
FJ, you are an admitted Trump loyalist cultist still neck deep in the bowels of a pro-insurrection anti-democracy and white supremist movement. That's really all that's left of the scorched earth scam of that racist regime.
I don't care of your thoughts of government coddling the wealthy over the poor or your other Ann Ryan plutocratic allegiance.
I've said since 2016 that you simply cannot reason with a Trump licker. You just can't do it.
When I retire to Galt's Gulch, Ronnie, you and Ellsworth Toohey better not come round with the other pan handlers looking for a handout. You won't get one. In fact, we'll probably tar, feather, and then run the two of you out of town on a rail as a testament to our commitment to "white supremacy". :)
I still haven't heard anyone get past the hysterical shrieking and actually spin us a plausible Handmaid's Tale of how any of the horrors you mention would actually play out.
Who the hell is going to run a campaign vowing to take away birth control?
"Thomas is asking for challenges to laws that made it legal on a national level to use birth control in the privacy of your home, engage in sodomy, either as a homosexual or a heterosexual and for people to marry the man or woman of their choice."
There are no such laws. They are supreme court rulings. What he and other Federalist Society people are arguing is, this needs to be decided by the people via their elected representatives, not by judges.
I disagree with everybody and with the basis of all the argumentation. See my blog post Monday.
"Who the hell is going to run a campaign vowing to take away birth control?"
Sen Marsha Blackburn has called for banning contraceptives for anyone other than married couples. Blake Masters (R) running for AZ senate said he would not vote for Supreme justice who wouldn't overturn cases that protect the right to contraceptives. Idaho state rep Brent Crane (R) wants to ban access to Plan B, abortion pills, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Mississippi Gov Tate Reeves seems to like that idea as well as do several Louisiana R lawmakers. Have you taken a look at TX and NC? And then of course, the Catholic church is all in on it.
And most of all, we have a MAGA SCOTUS justice calling for it as well.
You mentioned one person in the US Congress. Also, you conflate abortifacients (which include IUDs) with birth control pills.
Still, I accept the facts you have provided. I can't prove it--just my conjecture--but if a group of GOOPers anywhere were able, at any level, to pass a law to outlaw birth control (pills, condoms, diaphragms, etc), they would be voted out. I don't see how such positions would gain majority approval anywhere.
Catholics??? The most Catholic US states and the most Catholic nations are also the most socially liberal (Kansas excluded).
And sf, as Max Weber noted, there's a big difference between Catholics and Protestants. The former generally accept the world and power structure unquestioningly, whilst the latter, on the other hand, read their Bibles and interpret it for themselves.
SF, I named a U.S. Senator, a state congressman, a few state governors, a few candidates, and a MAGA nut on the highest court in the lands welcoming a chance to overturn the right to contraceptives.
Don't confuse overturning Griswold v. Connecticut with outlawing contraceptives and don't confuse the power of MAGA states if it is.
You did not name a US Senator. I accepted what you provided, and then you overplay your hand.
I'm not confusing anything. I am asking for someone to provide a plausible scenario where politicians ban birth control without suffering heavy losses in the next election.
I will predict now that the following will fail/be struck down by the courts:
A state punishing a woman for traveling to another state for an abortion
A state punishing residents for receiving birth control or abortifacients by mail, or taking/using any such materials in the privacy of their own homes.
And SF, let's not let Collins accusations of Kavanaugh (R) lying about R v W fly under the radar.
Either Collins is lying or Kavanaugh (R) is. You can take your pick albeit taking a pick has become a rather convenient alternative for factual alternatives..
SF, I suspected being asked for proof which is why I specifically stated that “Collins says” and Collins’s accusation”. I wasn’t invited to private conversations with Kavanaugh (R) and Collins or Manchin but see no reason to call them a liar. Collins isn’t up for re-election until 2026 and Manchin in 2024 with skyrocketing high approval ratings.
You seem to either be grasping for a technicality to gavel case dismissed or just have a need to defend the beer guzzling date raping frat boy.
We should trust her, Ronnie? Show some 'caritas' and 'believe the woman' in the absence of all evidence? Show 'faith' in her? Like you do with the Jan 6 people?
If someone issues an accusation of lying, the better back it up. "Misleading" is squishier, but we are dealing with SCOTUS nominations, which are full of squishy language. I see you totally ignored the Snopes link and the CNN and CBS links I provided. AT THE TIME, the news reports were lamenting they would not swear to respect Roe.
C'mon, sf, you're just defending the beer guzzling frat date raping boy! Karnak can "Read your Mind." After all, it's all a mere reflection of the "mirror neurons" in his own. :(
Democrat "argumentation" (such as it is) is build upon a foundation of lies and--more charitably--unsubstantiated accusations and assertions. No wonder argumentum ad passiones is their go-to move.
He certainly was familiar with <a href='https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735779.001.0001/acprof-9780198735779-chapter-8">the Road to Larissa</a>
In the '50's 60's and early 70's - there was a saying going around - that went something like this: don't hook up with someone you would not marry. Roe threw that out the window. In the heat of the moment no one stopped to go to the drug store or gas station restroom and throw a dime in the vending machine for a condom.
I have to use a different device to comment. After saying what I said in other earlier posts, GOOGLE or Blogger will not let me comment as anonymous or my blogger account, saying something like------- And error acoured and could not published. Both here and Kids blog. But was able to post on Carols blog. And am able with another device. The speech POLICE are blocking divices.
I linked a Ran Paul utube about the Davos--- New World Order/World Economic Forum; And asked you all to watch. And called them white nationalist-SOCIALIST. That got me banned by google/blogger--from commenting here on that device. And exposed the gas/fuel stock options trick for campaign donations to the dems. Guess planned parenthood won't be donating as much NOW!!!! Where ever will the $$$$$'s come from for the dems next election cycle?
Russia and China - just like in 1996. Shelia Jackson Lee said so in a interview on tv station 26 in houston back in 1997. And in 1944 --- That is how Truman was the only one allowed to be on FDR's last tickit. Truman came out of the investigation with out any baggage. All the other selections were tanted with illegal campaign money from Russa. But didn't matter in 1996's Clinton reelection!
Street larpers, indeed. I am embarrassed to be the same sex as some of these women, particularly some of the memes they are displaying. The bloody dolls are especially disgusting.
‘’President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,”
——Rep. Mary E. Miller (R) Saturday at a MAGA Klan rally in Mendon IL.
I can actually give Miller the benefit of the doubt of misspeaking.
I can’t however downplay the cheers of the MAGA nuts. They heard what they heard and they cheered according because that’s who they are and consistent with the Mango god they genuflect to.
And while I said I could give her the benefit of the doubt, that doesn’t mean I buy it as truthful either.
Miller has a batshit crazy history including Hitler sympathizing.
As pointed out in the Guardian today: ‘’ Saturday’s rally came as some elements of the far right have pushed the “great replacement theory”, a racist ideology that alleges white people and their influence are being “replaced” by people of color. Proponents blame both immigration as well as demographic changes, such as birthrates.‘’
She’s up for re-election in a redistricted precinct. The “wink wink” race baiting has become somewhat of a cash cow for the GOP and will no doubt raise considerable funds for her.
So... you're willing to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the things you like hearing and with which you agree, but not to the things you don't want to hear or those you believe to be "deceivers" or have been "deceived". How white of you, Ronnie. How white.
...because many see it as a symbol of rebellion, not 'white supremacy'. The anti-racists have misappropriated the symbolism to serve their (now lost) 'cause. ;p -FJ
I have no idea how inputs are processed in the truth tables in your head FJ but don't try use your non sequitur logic to tell me what I'm willing to do or not do.
Maybe Miller is so stupid that she can't read what's on a piece of paper? May she was overwhelmed by the presence of her cult leader? I don't truly know for fact.
But I think it's a fact that she said it. I think its a fact that the MAGA nuts loved it. And it's probably a fact that it pleases the Trump base and that it will generate money.
And I also think it's a fact that it's a version of the same race bating movie we're seen for over 5 years.
There's nothing there that's white of me or otherwise.
Glad you asked. Democrats have been crowing for almost 20 years now how 'non-white' immigration will demographically swamp the nation, turn 'whites' into a minority, and give Democrats a permanent majority.
That disturbs me not at all, because I am contributing to the 'browning' of America, but trolling like that can be effective on lots of people, and as a bonus for Democrats, it really triggers the racists.
I explain it all here, and I see you were absent the discussion, so you most likely missed it.
Have Democrats have been crowing for almost 20 years now how 'non-white' immigration will demographically swamp the nation, turn 'whites' into a minority, and give Democrats a permanent majority OR could it be you've simply been told that Democrats were doing this?
Ronald, please go read the blog post. I have links to back up what I am saying. It is a fact that Democrats made the comments about demographics, immigration and Democrat majorities over and over and over. They then took it further, chalking up 'white rage' etc to anxiety over being replaced as a majority and being forced into minority status. That is a documented fact.
My opinion is, this was deliberate goading and trolling, and lots of people took the bait.
Please go read this blog post. I notice you, along with CI were absent from our discussion.
At first blush, this type of ranting looks irresponsible. Doesn't she and the other unhinged leftists realize once you trash the legitimacy of an institution, if won't come back, even if your side manages to take back that institution?
Then, I realize I have read them wrong. They want to torch and deligitimize everything they cannot control. Their rage-filled childish stupidity will have negative consequences for us all.
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” -- Laurence Tribe
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” -- William Saletan
"Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." -- John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.” -- Richard Cohen — Washington Post
Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.” -- Alan Dershowitz
“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” -- Cass Sunstein
Roe completed with "Law" what Medicine had just started with "The Pill" a few years earlier. It made men and women "equal" in the "recreational sex" game. Feminism was "hip" and the "consumer revolution" was BOOMING. The human and social costs of abortion were not, at the time, yet counted.
Even Roe acknowledged "competing rights" between the mother and the fetus (which has his/her own separate genome, invalidating the "my body" claim) as did the Justices in this latest decision. That is what makes this a unique conundrum.
We can't have an honest debate if we can't even acknowledge the basic facts of the issue.
Rudy Guilani was SMACKED in his back while campaigning for his son who is running for governor in NY. What is wrong with people. You don't like them, don't agree with them so you accost them? The 39 year old man that hit Guiliani is sitting in jail. Guiliani refused medical care - glad he was ok. But this is our nation now. Rudy said that he felt as if “A BOULDER HIT ME” at the Supermarket. . The Suspect who is a store employee named Daniel Gill was arraigned today in Staten Island Criminal Court on misdemeanor charges of Assault in the Third Degree, and released on his own recognizance. The police observed the whole event on videotape, and charged him with second degree assault Is this what our Country has come to? If you don’t like a politician, or what he says, you assault him? Why can’t you just Shut the hell up and walk away? It’s Time to Start Pressing Charges Against These Violent Dema-Fasict Brown Shirts
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Why would any parent allow their son to join a college fraternity?
ReplyDeleteThey are cesspits of homosexual sadomasochism.
TEST
DeleteYou passed!
Delete...but just barely! C-
DeleteWhy is Fauci CDC still pushing Covid jab made from original Wuhan virus? Many mutations now, people not dying.
ReplyDeleteWhy booster? Why children? I smell something fishy and stinky.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
PRAISE GOD! After 50 years of murder, Roe v Wade is overturned! HUMAN RIGHTS BEGIN IN THE WOMB!
ReplyDeleteAmen!
Delete-FJ
A historic day!
DeleteYES! Thank God.
DeleteI wonder if we would even have outrageous inflation and national debt right now if there were 65 million more Generations X and Y workers and consumers shouldering the burden of 72 million retiring Baby Boomers.
Delete...Boomer retirees need 3 workers to keep their Social Security afloat. They killed 2 of them.
Delete...and now that Boomers are retiring they ban killing the financially inconvenient.
DeleteBecause the "Greatest Generation" spent the Boomer's retirement savings instead of "investing/saving" it....
DeleteWe can keep the generational blame game going, or we can decide not to play it.
-FJ
Personally, I gave the SSA people hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 40+ years. I also saved about 1/4 of that amount myself in a 401k... and THAT is what Biden's using up now to pay for his ridiculous borrowing/ spending levels through inflation. I can't possibly save money faster than he can borrow and waste it.
Delete-FJ
Government is NOT the solution. It's the Problem.
Delete...and it's getting WORSE!
Delete-FJ
The Great Narrative is here!
ReplyDeleteYou will own nothing, and you will be happy!
-FJ
Best go check you retirement portfolio's ESG ratings!
DeleteCorporate Governance will save us all!
-FJ
FJ,
DeleteThe Great Narrative is here!
How many are aware of the provisions in that video?
Very few... I was just made aware, myself.
Delete-FJ
This is what they came with at Davos...
DeleteA pushback begins
Delete-FJ
Certainly going to be some interesting 2nd and 3rd order effects of the Dobbs ruling. Will those high on their own supply now overreach? Probably.
ReplyDeleteYou can count on the overreach. DeSantis is already overreaching (on other issues).
DeleteOverall, this is healthy. Even liberal law experts said Roe was wrongly decided, and this kind of legal contortions, squinting just right and penumbras set a precedent where anyone could read anything into the constitution. I hope this puts a brake on that.
I also think the hysterical talk of banning birth control and gay marriage is also overheated panic.
Thomas made the argument they were wrongly decided, but somebody's gotta bring a case to even think of getting either banned, and before that, there has to be a law to challenge. Even among our current crop of idiots and zealots, I can't see any way a dense enough collection of them gets together to form a majority that would ban birth control, and banning gay marriage is a close second. Even if, by some crazy scenario that happened, the perpetrators would be voted out and the laws repealed.
My take, anyway.
I wish I had your optimism.
DeleteWhat plausible scenario do you see where the Supremes would overturn birth control? I'd love to hear it. I could be missing something.
DeleteI don't have a scenario mapped out, but don't you think a case before the Court could raise some of the same arguments as they did with Dobbs? Birth control isn't mentioned in the Constitution.....and it's debatable whether there is a "long and rich tradition" in our nation's history.
DeleteElected representatives have even raised the ruling of Loving. Thomas ought to love that one.
Whether from the Left or the Right, I'm generally not optimistic where it regards the Liberty and Sovereignty of the Citizen. Very pleased with Bruen though, but that should have been a no-brainer, as even Justice Taney referenced the Right in the Dred Scott case.
There will be new cases when the Day-After abortificants get used in States in which abortion is illegal.... cuz we ALL know how liberals love stretching definitions... like "what is birth control".
Delete-FJ
Which is why definitions like "life begins at "conception" are so important.
DeleteCI: See my blog post on Monday
DeleteText of the "Pardon" Letter, sent to Mollie Michael -Trump’s assistant- by REP. Mo Brooks.
ReplyDeleteDear Mollie:
President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz.
It is clear that deep-pocketed and vitriolic Socialist Democrats (with perhaps some liberal Republican help) are going to abuse America’s judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans with sham charges deriving from our recent fight for honest and accurate elections, and speeches related thereto.
As such, I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:
Every Republican who signed the Amicus brief in the Texas lawsuit against other states deriving from their violation of Article I, Section 4 (and, perhaps, other) provision of the United States Constitution.
Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions
Arizona and Pennsylvania.
American simply cannot permit Socialist Democrats to abuse Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, United States Constitution and various federal statutes via their often-used strategy of abusing the judicial process via private organizations they fund or the prosecutorial arm they will soon control.
Thank you for your consideration.
As anyone with the comprehension skills and reading ability of a 3rd grader should be able to see; he was concerned that something along the lines of the January 6 Select Committee would descend into a Soviet/Nazi show trial.
In view of the dual "impeachment" hearings; propped up with the totally manufactured "evidence" of the "Trump Dossier", that is exactly what happened!
Above was me -Warren-. Blogger isn't letting me sign in.
DeleteIt goes hand-in-hand with the Great Narrative...
DeleteThis is the Neo-Liberal coup d'etat to The Great Narrative.
DeleteCapitalist "control" by shareholders gets re-assigned to stakeholders (expert bureaucrats)... like the Chinese do. A Mandarin economy.
DeleteMuch like pleading the 5th...if they did nothing wrong, they shouldn't need a pardon. The Trump Rule.
DeleteCJ, you can say that after the Russia lies/hearings/accusations/!!
DeleteI can. Separate and distinct events. One far more egregious than the other.
DeleteBut might not have been quite so 'separate and distinct" had, for example, any of the info Schiff promised hadn't been all lies. (by the way, has he been at all criticized officially for that?!..no) Not sure lying about a president either way isn't 'egregious'... I'm thinking that lie was pretty "against democracy!!!!" too.
Deletelol! Separate events... same pattern... Uni-party partisans using DoJ/ FBI and Congressional Committees/ Impeachment powers to intimidate Republicans (Congress/ President) and punish anti-Progressive WrongThinke.
DeleteImpeach AG Merrick Garland!
-FJ
Investigate the DNC under RICO.
Delete-FJ
Likewise, Americans don't give a damn when Supreme Court nominees give an answer to a question on settled law....and then rule in the opposite direction. When the ruling is in line with one's opinion of course.
DeleteGet with the Democrat's program, CI... they must be PUNISHED!
DeleteGovernment is now weaponized, and Obama weaponized it. The arguments and complaints of election losers are now TREASON!
-FJ
...and their supporters are DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!
Delete-FJ
Get with the Democrat's program, CI
DeleteNope.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
DeleteHow do you sleep at night, and how long before Merrick Garland's SWAT Team get's there? ;P
Delete'Cuz even RINO's GOT to know that Merrick Garland's GOT to go!
Deleteerratum - RINOs above
Delete-FJ
Doesn't matter, I'm not reading your links anyway.
DeleteIgnorance IS bliss...
Delete-FJ
So are fairy tales, told by charlatans.
DeleteOficialista charlatans.
DeleteParanoiac critical oficialista charlatans... ;)
DeleteI do like that Cervantes guy, though.
Delete--FJ
:)
Delete:p
DeleteCI, No justice lied during their hearings. Indeed, a judicial nominee would be stupid and irresponsible to make a categorical claim. The ruling depend on how the case was argued.
DeleteI didn't state that they lied.
DeleteSee my post at the bottom with links to Snopes and news articles from CNN.
DeleteBiden's speech after the Roe overturning was so shocking it almost brought tears to my eyes...seriously. For a sitting president to say the things he said was breath taking....despicable. What was the unity he'd promised? How about starting with "This is something I don't agree with, and I hope it changes, but we must accept this ruling from the greatest court in the land'? No, he threatened gay marriage, birth control!, blaming Trump that "these were HIS choices", told us Congress must make Roe "Federal Law"...and, above all, " This fall ROE IS ON THE BALLOT" OH, yes...he and Pelosi both mentioned that in their speeches after the ruling this morning....it's all about the VOTES, folks....No matter HOW one feels about abortion, this was a frightening, telling speech full of threat and mischaracterization...didn't feel good.
ReplyDeleteThe Dominion machines will all get set to (D).
Delete-FJ
Just try getting a re-count. After Jan 6... I DARE you!
Delete-FJ
erratum - "Jan 6. Committee Hearings"... above. The SWAT Team will be knocking down your door before the papers requesting the recount even get submitted.
Delete-FJ
Know why the Senate passed Gun Control today in the shadow of Roe? They're coming for the guns.... so that Roe won't matter.
Delete-FJ
Golly Z, and just like that, a president "telling speech full of threat and mischaracterization" is frightening and brings tears to your eyes because it's "breath taking....despicable" and doesn't offer "the unity he'd promised"?
DeleteNice 5 year nap?
So when is Twitter going to suspend Biden's Twitter account and shadow ban his followers? Hypocrite.
Delete-FJ
Oh, I don't know but maybe when he refuses to concede a legitimate defeat and uses Twitter to encourage white hate groups and mobs to no longer "stand by" and attack our Capitol in order to stay in power against the people's will?
DeleteTo which my reply is... lol!
Delete-FJ
Rabbit hole music?
DeleteIt's not part of the oficialismo salsa that you favour? Do you only listen to NPR State Radio? Jes' wondrin'...
Delete-FJ
I don't confuse Newsmax comedy skits with reality.
Delete...and I don't confuse figments of Adam Schiff's diegetic imagination with the real world, either.
Delete-FJ
His paranoiac critical surrealisms are getting old, especially since he seeks to punish others through misusing them.
DeleteHe adds 2+1+3+4 and comes up with 4,312.
Delete-FJ
...and you scream, "the 2 is right".... " and so's the 3"!
Delete-FJ
Rabbit hole math class?
DeleteYou'd be the expert on rabbit warrens, Ronnie.
Delete<a href='https://youtu.be/8iOJfSH5j1M">:P</a>
You'd be the expert on rabbit warrens, Ronnie.
Delete:P
Dude, while your obvious obsession with low intellect Youtube zingers obviously fills your day, they impress me in the least.
DeleteBut I guess when that's all you got to justify your admitted allegiance to the con man you say you still support, well, "what's up doc"?
btw - I read your book. It seemed a bit paranoiac, but it was entertaining.
Delete-FJ
I'm not without vices Elizabeth.
Delete...but have thee any virtues, Ron?
Delete-FJ
...and are they "singular" or "cardinal" in their "opposition"?
Delete;p
I have enough virtue to not openly still support a man who lost the GOP, the House, the Senate, and the presidency, all in a single term and in the process, diminished the stature of the United States on the world stage, left unchecked the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence, and saw our own nation’s debt expand nearly as much in 4 years as Obama had in 8, who btw, was dealing with a crashed economy, Virtue isn't supporting a mafia figure thug who gave us 4 years of increasing civil unrest, ending with an effort to overturn the nation’s democratic process that culminated in a violent siege of the Capitol. You know, supporting a guy who is STILL telling the same damn lies that brought this about? I have enough virtue to not still support a guy impeached twice, and only avoided being found guilty by abusing his powers of office to obstruct the investigation, and then by intimidating members of his own party to rig the Senate trial. Virtue doesn't support a term of office that was a never-ending series of scandals; who's company faces criminal charges and he stands a fair chance of indictment himself, all while his PAC hauled in hundreds-of-millions that he can essentially use as he wishes, all while running an investment scam where the money is directed into a alternative media site that seems to be largely imaginary and who he has controlling interest in both.
DeleteYes, I have virtues.
Ronald...to hear a president mischaracterize and lie THAT badly , and dump an institution like the Supreme Court of the United States in the mud....mock, lie, exaggerate, prompt protests that he knows won't stay peaceful should make ANY American feel pretty worried for our country....that, to me, is a little tear provooking...absolutely. Then to hear Pelosi and him both use this whole mess as a way to get votes? Some "UNITY" he'd promised, huh?
DeleteZ, I have no control as to what you hear or more to the point of my original comment, what you choose and have chosen not to hear.
DeleteAnd I'm not sure if you've noticed but this is a highly divisive issue that not everyone hears the same tune you do.
that, to me, is a little tear provooking
DeleteDid you shed a tear when another POTUS did the same thing to the men and women of the Intelligence Community, believing rather, in the apparatus of the Kremlin?
After all the Russian Dossier BS with the tinkling hookers etc, all peddled by a foreigner, and our Alphabet Agencies eagerly gulping it down, I can understand how President Trump could end up felling some animus towards the Intel Establishment.
DeleteBiden did get one thing right in his speech: This is a matter for elected officials.
DeleteTrump made his comment's about the IC, as I recall, regarding Russia's very real attempts to interfere in American elections......not to be confused with the 'dossier'.
DeleteBut the community certainly has gulped down misinformation from a foreigner in recent memory, aka 'Curveball'.
It's a dangerous trend.
DeleteVirtue means ability to produce "the good". You failed, Ronnie. Spectacularly.
Delete...and snuffing the life out of babies before they're even born? It sure did result in anything "good".
DeleteTry making a list.
Delete-FJ
Z, I had to turn his speech off it was so, so upsetting.
ReplyDeleteDid conservative Supreme Court Justices lie about Roe during their hearings?
ReplyDeleteLeftwing Snopes says FALSE
More context, contemporaneous of the hearings.
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-planned-parenthood-casey/index.html
Pro tip: When the flames of leftwing hysteria are so high they are burning the clouds, modify the dates of your google search to predate hysteria
Brett Kavanaugh sidesteps Senate questions on Roe v Wade
DeleteA contemporaneous accout during Alito's hearing:
DeleteSupreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said the court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion deserves "great respect" but did not commit to upholding it in the future, senators said Tuesday.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alito-respects-roe-v-wade/
Accusing prominent officials of lying when the facts clearly show they did not, is corrosive to our institutions.
Sen. Joseph
The SCOTUS nominees didn't lie. But they also weren't truthful. Whatever happened to the 'black robed tyrants'? All is forgiven when they rule according to a certain opinion?
DeleteFor full disclosure, though I would lean more towards choice, I don't necessarily find fault in this ruling. I'm certain that I will, were they to overturn some other 14th Amendment precedents.
Them making sweeping imminent domain rulings to hand someone's house over to a corporation (can't remember the name of the case) is bald-faced judicial tyranny.
DeleteThis ruling doesn't come close. Abortion is still legal in the US, and as you stated above, this is not a simple matter. There is another life involved, and law throughout history has recognized that on various levels.
The Kelo decision.
DeleteSilver has stated... "Abortion is still legal in the US."
DeleteTrue enough. Today. Yesterday Fmr VP announced his hope for a GOP Congress, Senate and President to permanently ban abortion across the nation. With Roe gone, does anyone here believe the GOP will be hemmed in by the little filibuster rule on this?
Silver has also said... "I also think the hysterical talk of banning birth control and gay marriage is also overheated panic."
Really? Was Justice Thomas overheated when he, in his written concurrence, asked for a challenge to Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell, all based on the same right to privacy and precedent that SCOTUS struck down yesterday.
Thomas is asking for challenges to laws that made it legal on a national level to use birth control in the privacy of your home, engage in sodomy, either as a homosexual or a heterosexual and for people to marry the man or woman of their choice.
The only other significant ruling based on the same precedents he failed to mention and call for a challenge was Loving, the one that made his marriage to his wife legal.
Call me cynical, but I find it amazing that Justice Thomas, not known for overheated rhetoric, would avoid the one ruling in this line of legal line of thought that might touch his life.
Sorry Silver, I am not at all certain we will not see action on these fronts soon. And a lot of willing conservatives ready to support it.
Are you admitting that the only case Thomas needs to recuse himself on in the future is "Loving" to satisfy your objections? Good to know. Should all the current women justices have recused themselves on Roe?
Delete-FJ
"Did conservative Supreme Court Justices lie about Roe during their hearings?"
DeleteTo those like me and you who no longer had a say? On their free airtime auditions and commercials on Fox News? Well, perhaps not but they certainly gave an alternate impression.
How about to Susan Collins who indeed had a say, if not thee say? She said yes.
It's kinda hard to downplay the reality of other rights being "overheated" when Justice Thomas clearly and calmly invites them.
Abortion has never been an issue with me other than perhaps the political ramifications of it. Rich kids can still simply party and abort with ease while poor raped kids, well, not so much.
But anyway, could be a factor in Michigan and Wisconsin in Nov 8. And with gay and interracial marriages, contraceptives, and the thought of state police kicking down the door and hauling your wife off for giving you a bj is on the chopping block, there's a lot there for Dems to use-if of course they're smart and savvy enough.
^^Thinks that government exists to give poor kids the same options/ values/ opportunities that rich kids have^^
DeleteI'm personally tired of government trying to force me to worship Gaia and pledge my existence to "carbon neutrality".
-FJ
The dreams of those who favour "positive liberties" always become nightmares for those who favoured the "negative liberty" and limits to government like our Founders.
Delete-FJ
"I need a medical intervention to remedy the problems of my own promiscuity."
DeleteRonnie - "Quick, let's the CDC to work on an abortion procedure. We'll also decaffeinate your coffee and sacharinnize your soda for weight control...."
-FJ
"...and if poor people can't afford them, we'll subsidize them and call them human rights"!
Delete-FJ
"....I'm feeling very feminine today, can you schedule my sex change procedure with Medicare/ Medicaid?"
Delete-FJ
FJ, you are an admitted Trump loyalist cultist still neck deep in the bowels of a pro-insurrection anti-democracy and white supremist movement. That's really all that's left of the scorched earth scam of that racist regime.
DeleteI don't care of your thoughts of government coddling the wealthy over the poor or your other Ann Ryan plutocratic allegiance.
I've said since 2016 that you simply cannot reason with a Trump licker. You just can't do it.
When I retire to Galt's Gulch, Ronnie, you and Ellsworth Toohey better not come round with the other pan handlers looking for a handout. You won't get one. In fact, we'll probably tar, feather, and then run the two of you out of town on a rail as a testament to our commitment to "white supremacy". :)
Delete-FJ
Ronald and Dave,
DeleteI still haven't heard anyone get past the hysterical shrieking and actually spin us a plausible Handmaid's Tale of how any of the horrors you mention would actually play out.
Who the hell is going to run a campaign vowing to take away birth control?
We will, sf... because morning after Plan-B abortificants will be labelled as "birth control"... and not, as they should be, "abortion" drugs
DeleteThey're even calling it "emergency contraception"...
Delete-FJ
It's all about blurring the lines.
DeleteDave,
DeleteYou're screwed up here:
"Thomas is asking for challenges to laws that made it legal on a national level to use birth control in the privacy of your home, engage in sodomy, either as a homosexual or a heterosexual and for people to marry the man or woman of their choice."
There are no such laws. They are supreme court rulings. What he and other Federalist Society people are arguing is, this needs to be decided by the people via their elected representatives, not by judges.
I disagree with everybody and with the basis of all the argumentation. See my blog post Monday.
...wherever there used to be a BRIGHT RED one.
Delete"Who the hell is going to run a campaign vowing to take away birth control?"
DeleteSen Marsha Blackburn has called for banning contraceptives for anyone other than married couples. Blake Masters (R) running for AZ senate said he would not vote for Supreme justice who wouldn't overturn cases that protect the right to contraceptives. Idaho state rep Brent Crane (R) wants to ban access to Plan B, abortion pills, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Mississippi Gov Tate Reeves seems to like that idea as well as do several Louisiana R lawmakers. Have you taken a look at TX and NC? And then of course, the Catholic church is all in on it.
And most of all, we have a MAGA SCOTUS justice calling for it as well.
...that's "Super MAGA SCOTUS justice" to YOU, peasant.
Delete-FJ
You mentioned one person in the US Congress. Also, you conflate abortifacients (which include IUDs) with birth control pills.
DeleteStill, I accept the facts you have provided. I can't prove it--just my conjecture--but if a group of GOOPers anywhere were able, at any level, to pass a law to outlaw birth control (pills, condoms, diaphragms, etc), they would be voted out. I don't see how such positions would gain majority approval anywhere.
Catholics??? The most Catholic US states and the most Catholic nations are also the most socially liberal (Kansas excluded).
...and please. All WrongThinke on THIS topic MUST be OBLITERATED! Cancellations available upon request.
Delete-FJ
Also, Louisiana excluded. They are the one conservative state in the Catholic top 10.
Deletehttps://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-by-population-of-catholics.html
And sf, as Max Weber noted, there's a big difference between Catholics and Protestants. The former generally accept the world and power structure unquestioningly, whilst the latter, on the other hand, read their Bibles and interpret it for themselves.
Delete-FJ
...some even adopt Panglossian and Leibnitzian dreams of cultivating their own gardens... ;)
Delete...having rejected the Platonic/Catholic tenets of "Pure Reason" in favour of "Sufficient" Reason.
Delete-FJ
-FJ
SF, I named a U.S. Senator, a state congressman, a few state governors, a few candidates, and a MAGA nut on the highest court in the lands welcoming a chance to overturn the right to contraceptives.
DeleteDon't confuse overturning Griswold v. Connecticut with outlawing contraceptives and don't confuse the power of MAGA states if it is.
OMG - They might OUTLAW INTERNET PORN... I'll REALLY become an Incel after THAT happens!
Deletelol!
-FJ
Ronald,
DeleteYou did not name a US Senator. I accepted what you provided, and then you overplay your hand.
I'm not confusing anything. I am asking for someone to provide a plausible scenario where politicians ban birth control without suffering heavy losses in the next election.
I will predict now that the following will fail/be struck down by the courts:
A state punishing a woman for traveling to another state for an abortion
A state punishing residents for receiving birth control or abortifacients by mail, or taking/using any such materials in the privacy of their own homes.
... and they should be struck down. They are clearly unconstitutional and violate our rights as free people.
DeleteAnd SF, let's not let Collins accusations of Kavanaugh (R) lying about R v W fly under the radar.
DeleteEither Collins is lying or Kavanaugh (R) is. You can take your pick albeit taking a pick has become a rather convenient alternative for factual alternatives..
Can you quote the lies?
Deletehttps://news.yahoo.com/collins-abortion-ruling-inconsistent-gorsuch-170140159.html
Based on the Senator's quote, I'd say the men were truthful:
Delete“He says for a precedent, a long-established like Roe, to be overturned it would have to have been grievously wrong and deeply inconsistent "
Roe and Casey were both grievously wrong (wrongly decided) and deeply inconsistent, relying on various fictions to keep them propped up.
I would like to see a good intellectually-rigorous rebuttal to this decision on legal merits. Can you point me to any?
"Yes'm Senator Collins.... I'll be a slave to precedent. Roe will not fall!"
Deletelol!
SF, I suspected being asked for proof which is why I specifically stated that “Collins says” and Collins’s accusation”.
DeleteI wasn’t invited to private conversations with Kavanaugh (R) and Collins or Manchin but see no reason to call them a liar. Collins isn’t up for re-election until 2026 and Manchin in 2024 with skyrocketing high approval ratings.
You seem to either be grasping for a technicality to gavel case dismissed or just have a need to defend the beer guzzling date raping frat boy.
We should trust her, Ronnie? Show some 'caritas' and 'believe the woman' in the absence of all evidence? Show 'faith' in her? Like you do with the Jan 6 people?
DeleteLOL!
-FJ
If someone issues an accusation of lying, the better back it up. "Misleading" is squishier, but we are dealing with SCOTUS nominations, which are full of squishy language. I see you totally ignored the Snopes link and the CNN and CBS links I provided. AT THE TIME, the news reports were lamenting they would not swear to respect Roe.
DeletePlease, sf, even Biden says "lying" now. The caritas is gone. In many cases, I suspect that it was never there. -FJ
DeleteWe're ALL Mrs. "Karen" Grundy, now! -FJ
DeleteC'mon, sf, you're just defending the beer guzzling frat date raping boy! Karnak can "Read your Mind." After all, it's all a mere reflection of the "mirror neurons" in his own. :(
Delete...you know, "paranoiac critical" mode.
DeleteDemocrat "argumentation" (such as it is) is build upon a foundation of lies and--more charitably--unsubstantiated accusations and assertions. No wonder argumentum ad passiones is their go-to move.
DeleteIt's why 'caritas' is so important.
DeleteThat's "charity" for all you non-Googlers.
DeleteI used to enjoy Bill Bennett's radio show on the way to work. I love his formulation that we should argue with "intelligence, candor and goodwill."
DeleteIndeed. I loved Bennett's book, "The Moral Compass", at the time it was released, too.
Delete:)
DeleteWe raised all our kids on The Book of Virtues, and they all read America, The Last Best Hope, Vols 1 and 2
DeleteHe certainly was familiar with <a href='https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735779.001.0001/acprof-9780198735779-chapter-8">the Road to Larissa</a>
DeleteHe certainly was familiar with the Road to Larissa
DeleteIn the '50's 60's and early 70's - there was a saying going around - that went something like this:
ReplyDeletedon't hook up with someone you would not marry.
Roe threw that out the window.
In the heat of the moment no one stopped to go to the drug store or gas station restroom and throw a dime in the vending machine for a condom.
I have to use a different device to comment.
ReplyDeleteAfter saying what I said in other earlier posts,
GOOGLE or Blogger will not let me comment as anonymous or my blogger account, saying something like-------
And error acoured and could not published.
Both here and Kids blog.
But was able to post on Carols blog.
And am able with another device.
The speech POLICE are blocking divices.
Try a different browser.
DeleteI linked a Ran Paul utube about the Davos--- New World Order/World Economic Forum; And asked you all to watch.
ReplyDeleteAnd called them white nationalist-SOCIALIST.
That got me banned by google/blogger--from commenting here on that device. And exposed the gas/fuel stock options trick for campaign donations to the dems.
Guess planned parenthood won't be donating as much NOW!!!!
Where ever will the $$$$$'s come from for the dems next election cycle?
Russia and China - just like in 1996.
ReplyDeleteShelia Jackson Lee said so in a interview on tv station 26 in houston
back in 1997. And in 1944 --- That is how Truman was the only one allowed to be on FDR's last tickit. Truman came out of the investigation with out any baggage. All the other selections were tanted with illegal campaign money from Russa.
But didn't matter in 1996's Clinton reelection!
Democrats have their campaign issue for this fall. Can they keep the flames of fear and rage blazing until November?
ReplyDeleteThere is also an opportunity here for the Repubelicons, but they are too dumb to seize it.
Should be fun to watch.
Bill Maher hosts the sanest debate so far, adding in this comment:
ReplyDeletecurrent politics “feels like a toxic marriage, where people are now doing things for spite.”
Examine the polling. There is a middle ground, and it looks a lot like European abortion law.
SF,
DeleteBill Maher? Did the earth just move?
He has become a voice of reason on many topics. Like James Carville, he is still a committed lefty, but thinks too many Democrats have come unhinged.
DeleteDave Miller I'm curious, why weren’t you aborted???
ReplyDeleteFJ,
ReplyDeleteLove that video!
Well, all the street larpers will have something to do this summer. Too bad the 'broken window' economic 'theory' is a fallacy...
ReplyDeleteStreet larpers, indeed. I am embarrassed to be the same sex as some of these women, particularly some of the memes they are displaying. The bloody dolls are especially disgusting.
ReplyDelete‘’President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,”
ReplyDelete——Rep. Mary E. Miller (R) Saturday at a MAGA Klan rally in Mendon IL.
And the MAGA nuts went wild.
RJW,
DeleteThe backtrack -- or the spin:
...Miller’s campaign said Saturday night that the congresswoman misread prepared remarks at a rally that Trump held for her in the village of Mendon.
"You can clearly see she is reading off a piece of paper, she meant to say ‘right to life,'" Miller spokesman Isaiah Wartman said.
Miller, R-Illinois, later tweeted: “I will always defend the RIGHT TO LIFE!”...
MAGA people often cheer -- at times, inappropriately, in my view. So do some of Chuck Schumer's supporters cheer.
I can actually give Miller the benefit of the doubt of misspeaking.
DeleteI can’t however downplay the cheers of the MAGA nuts. They heard what they heard and they cheered according because that’s who they are and consistent with the Mango god they genuflect to.
It was music to their ears.
And while I said I could give her the benefit of the doubt, that doesn’t mean I buy it as truthful either.
DeleteMiller has a batshit crazy history including Hitler sympathizing.
As pointed out in the Guardian today:
‘’ Saturday’s rally came as some elements of the far right have pushed the “great replacement theory”, a racist ideology that alleges white people and their influence are being “replaced” by people of color. Proponents blame both immigration as well as demographic changes, such as birthrates.‘’
She’s up for re-election in a redistricted precinct. The “wink wink” race baiting has become somewhat of a cash cow for the GOP and will no doubt raise considerable funds for her.
So... you're willing to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the things you like hearing and with which you agree, but not to the things you don't want to hear or those you believe to be "deceivers" or have been "deceived". How white of you, Ronnie. How white.
Delete-FJ
They heard what they heard and they cheered according......
DeleteThere are some reasons that there are confederate flags at every Trump rally.
...because many see it as a symbol of rebellion, not 'white supremacy'. The anti-racists have misappropriated the symbolism to serve their (now lost) 'cause. ;p -FJ
DeleteI have no idea how inputs are processed in the truth tables in your head FJ but don't try use your non sequitur logic to tell me what I'm willing to do or not do.
DeleteMaybe Miller is so stupid that she can't read what's on a piece of paper? May she was overwhelmed by the presence of her cult leader? I don't truly know for fact.
But I think it's a fact that she said it. I think its a fact that the MAGA nuts loved it. And it's probably a fact that it pleases the Trump base and that it will generate money.
And I also think it's a fact that it's a version of the same race bating movie we're seen for over 5 years.
There's nothing there that's white of me or otherwise.
The anti-racists have misappropriated the symbolism....
DeleteWeird how so many racists and groups of those those like-minded idiots use that very symbol so prodigiously.
Maybe they just didn't get your message.
Symbols can be so confounding... -FJ
DeleteDemocrats did an excellent job injecting the replacement theory into the national dialog. One of the greatest political tricks of the past two decades
DeleteHow did they convince so many right-wing pundits and politicians to carry that message?
DeleteGlad you asked. Democrats have been crowing for almost 20 years now how 'non-white' immigration will demographically swamp the nation, turn 'whites' into a minority, and give Democrats a permanent majority.
DeleteThat disturbs me not at all, because I am contributing to the 'browning' of America, but trolling like that can be effective on lots of people, and as a bonus for Democrats, it really triggers the racists.
I explain it all here, and I see you were absent the discussion, so you most likely missed it.
https://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-incredible-whiteness-of-being.html
Have Democrats have been crowing for almost 20 years now how 'non-white' immigration will demographically swamp the nation, turn 'whites' into a minority, and give Democrats a permanent majority OR could it be you've simply been told that Democrats were doing this?
DeleteThat is the "narrative". :)
DeleteWho's "source" is also the Democrat fawning MSM.
DeleteAre you calling "Fake News" on the Gospel according to Saint New York Times, Ronnie?
DeleteCareful, Ronnie, you could get excommuni-.... e-r-r-r... "cancelled" for that!
DeleteRonald, please go read the blog post. I have links to back up what I am saying. It is a fact that Democrats made the comments about demographics, immigration and Democrat majorities over and over and over. They then took it further, chalking up 'white rage' etc to anxiety over being replaced as a majority and being forced into minority status. That is a documented fact.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is, this was deliberate goading and trolling, and lots of people took the bait.
Please go read this blog post. I notice you, along with CI were absent from our discussion.
https://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-incredible-whiteness-of-being.html
Police officer torched and burned in "mostly peaceful" pro-abortion riots
ReplyDeleteDahlia Lithwick speaks for the nihilistic left. "If we can't control it, declare it illegitimate and burn it all down."
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court Will Pay for Overturning Roe
At first blush, this type of ranting looks irresponsible. Doesn't she and the other unhinged leftists realize once you trash the legitimacy of an institution, if won't come back, even if your side manages to take back that institution?
Then, I realize I have read them wrong. They want to torch and deligitimize everything they cannot control. Their rage-filled childish stupidity will have negative consequences for us all.
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
ReplyDelete-- Laurence Tribe
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”
-- William Saletan
"Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
-- John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
-- Richard Cohen — Washington Post
Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”
-- Alan Dershowitz
“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”
-- Cass Sunstein
The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade
Roe completed with "Law" what Medicine had just started with "The Pill" a few years earlier. It made men and women "equal" in the "recreational sex" game. Feminism was "hip" and the "consumer revolution" was BOOMING. The human and social costs of abortion were not, at the time, yet counted.
DeleteDecaffeinated coffee... decaffeinated sex. What's your pleasure? Enjoy! You MUST!
Delete:(
Delete1967...1975
DeleteEven Roe acknowledged "competing rights" between the mother and the fetus (which has his/her own separate genome, invalidating the "my body" claim) as did the Justices in this latest decision. That is what makes this a unique conundrum.
DeleteWe can't have an honest debate if we can't even acknowledge the basic facts of the issue.
It made men and women "equal" in the "recreational sex" game.
DeleteAs it should be.
Loved the Seals and Croft. Quite a song
DeleteDoesn't quite have the 2020 pro-Choice zeitgeist, does it?
DeleteRudy Guilani was SMACKED in his back while campaigning for his son who is running for governor in NY. What is wrong with people. You don't like them, don't agree with them so you accost them? The 39 year old man that hit Guiliani is sitting in jail. Guiliani refused medical care - glad he was ok. But this is our nation now.
ReplyDeleteRudy said that he felt as if “A BOULDER HIT ME” at the Supermarket. . The Suspect who is a store employee named Daniel Gill was arraigned today in Staten Island Criminal Court on misdemeanor charges of Assault in the Third Degree, and released on his own recognizance.
The police observed the whole event on videotape, and charged him with second degree assault
Is this what our Country has come to? If you don’t like a politician, or what he says, you assault him? Why can’t you just Shut the hell up and walk away?
It’s Time to Start Pressing Charges Against These Violent Dema-Fasict Brown Shirts