Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harvey Danger said:
Why the hell would anti-abortion activists get in on the carnage? They just won.

This is the same DHS braintrust that said white supremacists were the most dangerous domestic threat while BLM was burning St John's church outside their headquarters.
Click to expand...
I think that the most likely perpetrators are radical pro-aborts (ie Jane's revenge) and accelerationists. The accelerationists really scare me because I could easily see them committing some massacre on pro-choicers and make it seem like they are pro-life or Christian and that would set off the powderkeg.
 
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: justhereforments, Claus, spiritofamermaid and 2 others
Romper Stomper said:
Most IRL feminists will argue that men are harmed by patriarchal social norms and institutions that treat them as disposable automatons in workplaces. The whole hating men thing is mostly twitterite bullshit. They'll also advocate in the same vein for doing something to lower men's suicide rates.
Click to expand...
Not from what I've seen.

Unless feminists are like lolberts, where they a-log each other more than their supposed opponents.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: make_it_so, Associate Rick, spiritofamermaid and 1 other person
RodgerDodger said:
If they had the ability to pass it as Legislation they should have done it over the past 50 years. Reminder they just attempted it a few weeks ago while they held both houses of congress and the white House. They failed miserably. Remember Chuckie Schumer the Fucking Senate Majority Leader arguing for Post Birth Abortions on the floor of the Senate?
Click to expand...
Their first major hurdle is more the filibuster than anything, but there have been times in the past 50 years that Dems had an effective (key word) supermajority (that's how we got Obamacare).

Actually that's the second hurdle. The first hurdle was overcoming their strong desire to keep using the lack of federal law or an amendment to court votes from abortion supporters. They just could not resist the temptation to keep that train going.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: make_it_so
I think the over the top protests are going to backfire spectacularly. Bill Clinton said "Abortion should be legal, and rare".
Norbert the Tiger said:
I and others have expressed the very same sentiment, However I for one am not surprised by the cognitive dissonance, St George riots aok vs Jan 6 being an "insurrection," or libs talking about being Patriots while signing off on Keith Olbermann encouraging states to flat out defy court rulings or abolish SCOTUS through some sort of putsch.
It is plainly obvious these "people" do not operate from any principles whatsoever. They simply want what they want, and do not care how they get it. It is moral particularlism augmented by raw doublethink, distilled to its most potent form possible.
Not only do they have no interest in reading Hobbs or Roe/Wade which is quite correctly overturned, they probably are not capable of doing so, either because of emotional investment or being too ignorant and stupid to do so. And they somehow think they are the enlightened, educated ones.
Click to expand...
The people screeching are just drones, NPCs, mindless. They have to be if the clowns promoting their special brand of abortion tell them to protest, in mostly Democratic blue cities and states. Most people feel as Clinton said, as there are legitimate medical reasons for a woman to have a termination, the problem is these midwits not only want abortion right up until birth, they want it after birth as well, and repeatedly said so, The last part is really wanting the right be able to murder babies, toddlers and young children with no repercussions, something sane and reasonable people are completely against.

This is going to reinvigorate the right, and not in a way RINOs will be comfortable with.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Zaryiu2, Scarface1, Associate Rick and 13 others
lemme ASS you a question said:
can someone explain to a non american what the revision in gun legislation means that was posted alongside the repeal on roe v wade
Click to expand...
A few states, most famously New York have or had in place a backdoor way around the 2nd Amendment. They insisted that applying for a Carry Permit was subject to you presenting a valid danger that you faced in order to carry a firearm in public. Subject to the Local County Sheriff's discretion as to whether to allow it. In New York these are known as Sulivan Laws. They were on the books for over a century. And their primary purpose has always been to prevent black people from legally owning guns. Clarence Thomas just burned those laws to the ground. Now the Permit must be issued barring a Due Process ruling that declares them unfit. ie Criminal Conviction, Civil Mental Health Committal, or similar. You must be barred by law from gun ownership in order to reject the application.

The ruling would also seem ideal to burn down those newly enhanced Red Flag laws that the Senate Republicans just sold out their voters for. Gee it sucks to be them.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: make_it_so, Claus, spiritofamermaid and 13 others
Meat Target said:
Not from what I've seen.

Unless feminists are like lolberts, where they a-log each other more than their supposed opponents.
Click to expand...
I won't say what I'm involved in but when you leave the online sphere, people are much more rational and easy to talk to most of the time. That isn't to say there aren't exceptions, but talking to people in real life doesn't carry the same toxic vitriol talking online has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, LigmaTwatz and notafederalagent
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Scarface1, FunPosting101, Associate Rick and 10 others
1656122599994.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: make_it_so, Claus, spiritofamermaid and 5 others
  • Like
Reactions: Associate Rick
Feline Supremacist said:
Most people feel as Clinton said, as there are legitimate medical reasons for a woman to have a termination, the problem is these midwits not only want abortion right up until birth, they want it after birth as well, and repeatedly said so, The last part is really wanting the right be able to murder babies, toddlers and young children with no repercussions, something sane and reasonable people are completely against.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't common sense laws still allow free-range abortions but LIMIT them based on the trimester of the woman's womb? That would've been a promising compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreenHell, Claus, spiritofamermaid and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back