"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS should reconsider contraception"

Maybe I got you confused with someone else, if I did, my apologies.

I'm dead center of the political graph based on the surveys I've done.

I've been posting that same chart for the last couple days and everyone acts like it's written in Sumerian or something.

It's not complicated. The clue is in the title of the study the graph is a part of.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the minutia of the abortion debate, the fact is that 850k abortions would be unnecessary if people would bother to use birth control.

 

Yes, I was corrected on that already. Thanks.

 

I rarely get past headlines either. Almost everything people post to support their positions is partisan and worthless. But you are right about the constitution.

 

Roe v Wade dealt with state law (on abortion.) Loving dealt with state law (on inter racial marriage.) Both are moral issues as well as civil rights issues. There is no distinction at the basic core relevant levels.

 

So....you agree that SCOTUS can over turn Loving v Virginia and remove SCOTUS protection of inter racial marriage, this leaving it to States to legislate as they please on that issue, including to outlaw it as was the case before Loving v Virginia was decided in 1976?

 

By (unnecessarily) uttering that list, he implicitly invited challenges, spruiking the likely success of such challenges.

 

Baloney. The SCOTUS knows that abortion is one of the most divisive issues today. If they rule in favor or against that means any people will be upset about it. The only way to settle the issue is to let the PEOPLE decide.

The ruling is the best possible outcome. Like it or not Roe v Wade is no longer the law of the land imposed by a few unelected Justices.

Let freedom ring!!!!!

 

You are making a false equivalency. Compare apples and golf clubs.....well, you might as well.

 

This is a silly take. When legislation is proposed to ban contraception I’ll eat my hat.

 

Interracial marriage, as well as all marriages can be restricted by the States. How so? Age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/marriage-age-by-state

In that sense interracial marriage is not an absolute right which is the question I answered. It's still regulated by the States.

 

Indeed moronic trying to ban contraception "Every sperm is Sacred" Not torn at all about free contraception .. nor about the benefits of social engineering .. not some secret the disfunction at the lower end of the scale .. also need to take away the benefits that encourage proliferation of this activity .. end the fee meal ticket program - the State offing its duty onto the back of the sperm donor

 

Read that again and tell me who decided to overturn Roe v Wade removing a long established protection. and ignoring precedent. Was it a 'few unelected Justices' by any chance?

Sure, "Let freedom ring" provided it is decided by your zipcode. Now that's freedom, I'm sure.

 

How convenient and how far from reality is that!

 

If I were you I'd start marinating it. You have lots of far right extreme conservatives over there.

You might be wishing you had not opened this Box.

 

Yes or no?

So....you agree that SCOTUS can over turn Loving v Virginia and remove SCOTUS protection of inter racial marriage, this leaving it to States to legislate as they please on that issue, including to outlaw it as was the case before Loving v Virginia was decided in 1976?

 

If you were consistent in your application of this principle-- that anything that a business interest does to make money, any politician becomes responsible for, if he accepts contributions from the interest-- then I would not judge you as harshly. But this would mean that "Republicans," make money from the slaughter of innocent civilians, in a hyper-paranoid and overarmed society, whenever they accept support from the NRA, for example. And many take contributions, no doubt, from the actual manufacturers of weapons, beyond rifles. So, when defense contractors, are successful in helping to push our country into, or dissuade it from disengaging in a conflict...and so forth.

 

Still don't know anything about the NRA do ya? The NRA supports the slaughter of innocent civilians (or non-innocent) about as much as the DNC supports the slaugher of innocent civilians (in the form of abortion). Actually, I guess the DNC does support that. Bad analogy on my part. Sorry.

 

It gets ever more difficult to believe that gun manufacturers or the NRA are heart torn by popular mass shootings, as these have proven to be great drivers of gun sales.

 

Not really.

Media overhype of mass shootings cause three things:
1) Politicians want to ban guns
2) Gun sales increase because of the threat of gun bans
3) Copycat mass shootings leading back to #1.

Democrat politicians are much better at selling guns than the NRA. The NRA are much better at teaching people to safely handle guns and keeping politicians from enacting #1.

If you really want to lower the amount of mass shootings, then enact laws that curb the media's hype.

 

I can't say that you may well not have something, there; but curbing the media seems problematic-- freedom of the press, & all.

 

Yes, just as problematic as banning guns; right of the people to keep and bear Arms, & all

 

Not the same thing, but you are taking us further off topic, towards much more nuanced, subjective, and so contestable (i.e., unresolvable, in argument) areas.

Therefore, if I may retrace our steps. You claimed of my post:

Par10 said: ↑
Still don't know anything about the NRA do ya? The NRA supports the slaughter of innocent civilians (or non-innocent) about as much as the DNC supports the slaugher of innocent civilians (in the form of abortion). Actually, I guess the DNC does support that. Bad analogy on my part. Sorry.

To which, I replied:

DEFinning said: ↑
It gets ever more difficult to believe that gun manufacturers or the NRA are heart torn by popular mass shootings, as these have proven to be great drivers of gun sales.

Next, is where you change the argument:

Par10 said: ↑
Not really.

Media overhype of mass shootings cause three things:
1) Politicians want to ban guns
2) Gun sales increase because of the threat of gun bans
3) Copycat mass shootings leading back to #1.

Democrat politicians are much better at selling guns than the NRA. The NRA are much better at teaching people to safely handle guns and keeping politicians from enacting #1.

If you really want to lower the amount of mass shootings, then enact laws that curb the media's hype.
[End]

That is, you steer us into a conversation about who it is that most promotes greater gun sales, after mass shootings. While it is fear of regulation which is driving many of those sales, BTW, you leave out that some people genuinely become more concerned for their safety, more fearful, which is why they purchase a firearm.

But, as I said, this is all irrelevant, to the actual argument, into which you'd waded. Your post about me not understanding the NRA, came in response to this post, to Vman 12:

DEFinning said: ↑
If you were consistent in your application of this principle-- that anything that a business interest does to make money, any politician becomes responsible for, if he accepts contributions from the interest-- then I would not judge you as harshly. But this would mean that "Republicans," make money from the slaughter of innocent civilians, in a hyper-paranoid and overarmed society, whenever they accept support from the NRA, for example. And many take contributions, no doubt, from the actual manufacturers of weapons, beyond rifles. So, when defense contractors, are successful in helping to push our country into, or dissuade it from disengaging in a conflict...and so forth.
[End]

So, why the business makes this tainted money, is not relevant, to the principle that Vman 12 uses to condemn "Democrats"-- the mere fact that Planned parenthood makes money on fetal tissue (in Vman's book) means that it is in the vested interest of Dems, to keep going the abortions, which make money for Planned Parenthood, which contributed to them. But he doesn't likewise apply this to Republicans. Because, no matter whose speech, fans gun purchases, after these senseless attacks, the ones who make the money, are the gun Industry and, through them, the NRA.



Then, some of that money, is funnelled to GOP politicians.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Except that’s exactly what republicans are now telling us!

 

The right of privacy is a derived right. But they just ruled there are no derived rights.

 

How long will it take for this to start sinking in for the right wing? I suspect that for the very first time, many are going to begin to get a glimpse of the nightmare they have created through their ignorance and arrogance.