Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No wire hangers and other Supreme Court rulings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dung Beatles
    replied
    Originally posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post

    Only if it's to create a child as your angry, vengeful god dictates. That's one point in which the Christian religion holds hands with muslims on, the angry god of virginity.
    Ehhh... well, funny you should say that.

    The mainstream Protestant versions of that story doesn't take into account things like the Song of Solomon or the fact that getting women pregnant is a pretty big deal in the Old Testament. Not marrying them, getting them pregnant. A woman that just had sex with anyone was dangersou according to the scripture... but that's because she spread STD's throughout a community and make everyone sick.

    Something you should understand is that illness and punishment from God were one and the same thing. They didn't know about germs or bacteria. They didn't understand the relationship between feces and infection clearly either.

    Just about every sin in the bible to do with personal hygiene was to prevent the spread of disease. A village pump would give everyone the clap and the next thing you know everybody is sick and Akkad or Sumar might start moving in on your territory. So... if someone was a disease vector and got a bunch of people sick they culled them from the herd aka murdered them. Not to mention cheating wives and pregnant daughters taking an emotional toll the parents of the women.

    There are two places in the bible where they clearly talk about homosexuality as being sinful... but Greek and Latin scholars dispute the translation multiple fronts as being more focused on keeping young boys as sex slave and prostitutes... something that plagued the Greeks and still plagues the Middle East and Asia today... and would have been an enormous disease vector just like the gay community today is still plagued with much higher STD transmission rates.

    The point is... sex isn't bad in the Bible and furthermore, the bible is incredibly permissive on multiple fronts. There's nothing really against women having sex together and for another example there was nothing wrong if you and your brother, your dad and your uncle all boned the same slave girls since it is expressly allowable to rape (or sex up in some fashion) female slaves in the Bible. But, men being men, a lot of guys probably wanted to keep them to themselves or wanted to keep their sons from getting sick.

    Recall, disease wasn't disease. It was a direct affliction from God. If you got sick from eating something, you were cursed by God for it. That's not bacteria, that's God's hatred.

    In Leviticus there's a story about feeding a woman a concoction of water and dirt from the temple floor to determine if she's been unfaithful. If she gets sick and shows signs of food poisoning, you can kill her. if she doesn't, she didn't cheat... clearly because God would have smote her.

    We were all savages.back then.

    Premiums were put on virgins because that was the best way you knew she wasn't carrying someone else's kid already and didn't have a big chance of having any STDs.
    Last edited by Dung Beatles; 7/10/2020 9:29am, .

    Leave a comment:


  • Bneterasedmynam
    replied
    Originally posted by hungryjoe View Post
    I have never identified as a "southern woman".

    I am, however, up to a good "boning"!
    Only if it's to create a child as your angry, vengeful god dictates. That's one point in which the Christian religion holds hands with muslims on, the angry god of virginity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bneterasedmynam
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    Wait, what?

    I thought we were voting to pack the court for pew-pew and 2nd Amendment preservation....

    The only people that want to to eliminate abortion are southern women trying to prevent younger and looser women from boning their husbands...

    It's not like the men are really against abortion.

    They just say that when their wives are watching / listening.
    Religious wack jobs on the right disagree with you, and they run your hillbilly freak show. Now that's not to say they they're not complete hypocrites, but that god feller sure wants him some coat hangers.

    Leave a comment:


  • hungryjoe
    replied
    I have never identified as a "southern woman".

    I am, however, up to a good "boning"!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Gonzo
    replied
    Wait, what?

    I thought we were voting to pack the court for pew-pew and 2nd Amendment preservation....

    The only people that want to to eliminate abortion are southern women trying to prevent younger and looser women from boning their husbands...

    It's not like the men are really against abortion.

    They just say that when their wives are watching / listening.

    Leave a comment:


  • gregaquaman
    replied
    Originally posted by AprilRains View Post
    Watching libtards pretend they understand conservatives is worth a giggle, but that's all.

    Neck yourselves.
    Pretty much all you need to know.

    https://youtu.be/_LNbhDnoE24

    Leave a comment:


  • hungryjoe
    replied
    Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
    I really want to hear what HungryJoe and others who said that they voted for Trump for the purpose of court-packing have to say about this, because prominent Republicans have been saying that the Supreme Court's failure to ban abortion has strongly demoralized the conservative jurisprudence political movement. Granted I'm under the impression that Joe was mostly concerned about gun rights so he is probably a different type of constituent than someone who would be shocked by abortion rights being upheld.

    According to Politico, ( https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-court-341844 ) Josh Hawley said that "religious conservatives right now are “very depressed,” particularly after Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump pick, wrote the decision providing LGBTQ workers with federal workplace protections."

    Another conservative author, John Zmirak, proclaimed in the title of an article that "The conservative legal movement is dead": https://spectator.us/conservative-legal-movement-dead/



    He actually sounds like a scary fanatic, talking about moral truths and natural law, but that's an aside.
    Every election cycle there's a two part litmus test. For so many conservatives it is 2A. For far too many liberals it's a woman's right to choose. For those in between, be they center left or right of center, those who have little voice except at the voting booth, it is about judges who do not legislate from the bench, politicians who make laws for the good of the people and executives who will compromise when compromise means getting things done to better benefit the populace as a whole.

    Sadly, we see little of the above in this hyper-partisan time. Since when is 5/9 packed? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has bigger balls than you. You obviously have little knowledge of the history of the SCOTUS.

    We're at a time when it's far to easy to find a sympathetic judge/court, file for an injunction, get said injunction and hold a given matter hostage until it makes it's way through the courts. IF the court, often through appeal, even decides to take up the case.

    I don't like abortion yet it's the law of the land. Some of those voters, lawmakers and judges would allow it at any point, right up to the part where a viable human being, out of the womb, is left to die. Yet these same, in most cases, people will cry and gnash their teeth every time some fucked up kid shoots up a school.

    The fact you call me out for my vote in favor of our current President, based on my previously posted concerns about the future of the SCOTUS and the direction of this country, thinking it's a one or two issue concern, tells me you have a rather simplistic way of looking at life despite your attempts to appear a deep well of humanitarian thought.

    Enjoy the long and run-on sentences. They come from the heart.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDA
    replied
    Originally posted by BKR View Post

    The thing is, the more "liberal"members of the SCOTUS tend to share perspectives and viewpoints with more "leftist" politicians, and Democratic party in general. Same for Republicans/conservatives and the rest of the Court. Justice Thomas is particularly "conservative", as is Justice Alito.

    The battle over Roe v Wade isn't over. The Court essentially punted the Louisiana (and the Texas) case before it not really on the question of abortion right or wrong. In fact, they should not be doing that.

    It's the conservative side that basically thinks (because of religious beliefs, mostly) that abortion is a mortal sin, essentially homicide.

    Roe v Wade was decided in favor of a nationwide allowance of abortion based on 4th Amendment (privacy) rights. Nothing to do with abortion, really.


    Im undecided on the abortion topic myself but it sounds like the judges are atleast trying to do the right thing .

    Funny really that many conservatives would have been saying that they want to appoint judges that make non partisan considerations and accusing the left leaning judges of not doing so.

    Those same conservatives could now point at this as an example of that perhaps .

    And Point out to the democrats screaming “you lost” that maybe that means they win .

    Leave a comment:


  • BKR
    replied
    Originally posted by PDA View Post
    So its basically a chance for Democrat supporters to say "YAY WE WON THIS AND YOU LOSE" whilst the supreme court just trys to do its job in a non partisan way despite the grey.
    The thing is, the more "liberal"members of the SCOTUS tend to share perspectives and viewpoints with more "leftist" politicians, and Democratic party in general. Same for Republicans/conservatives and the rest of the Court. Justice Thomas is particularly "conservative", as is Justice Alito.

    The battle over Roe v Wade isn't over. The Court essentially punted the Louisiana (and the Texas) case before it not really on the question of abortion right or wrong. In fact, they should not be doing that.

    It's the conservative side that basically thinks (because of religious beliefs, mostly) that abortion is a mortal sin, essentially homicide.

    Roe v Wade was decided in favor of a nationwide allowance of abortion based on 4th Amendment (privacy) rights. Nothing to do with abortion, really.



    Leave a comment:


  • PDA
    replied
    So its basically a chance for Democrat supporters to say "YAY WE WON THIS AND YOU LOSE" whilst the supreme court just trys to do its job in a non partisan way despite the grey.

    Leave a comment:


  • BKR
    replied
    Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post

    So the issue is that packing the court with judges who are expected to rule along party lines has been a thing in the United States. Since the House and the Senate try to not pass controversial legislation that they will later be held accountable for by voters, they have abdicated their responsibilities to the executive and to the supreme court. There was the perception among conservatives that the supreme court was legislating from the bench by making liberal rulings most of the time, and hence a political movement to pack the court with percieved conservative justices. Hence, the reaction when the supreme court upheld certain abortion rights and gay rights. With all that being said, now it seems that progressives are now likewise talking more openly than ever about packing the court for the same reason, to get favorable supreme court rulings.

    Since both sides have problematic positions on various wedge issues, either way feels unsafe.
    The Democrats literally threatened the SCOTUS, dude. Remember that?

    Roosevelt tried to pack the SCOTUS as well.

    There ARE real differences in how to interpret cases before the SCOTUS.

    Leave a comment:


  • BKR
    replied
    Originally posted by PDA View Post
    Is this about sides or is this the court system working as it is intended ? as in non partisan decision making? what is the issue here?
    There are different legal philosophies (if that's the correct description) on how to interpret the Constitution related to cases.

    The extremes are:
    1.) The Constitution is a "living document", and interpretation should change with the times.
    2.) The Constitution is... fixed, and the courts should try fathom "original intent".

    There are shades in between, as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • BKR
    replied
    Originally posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post

    What second amendment cases are you referring to??
    The NYC once that got mooted, for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wounded Ronin
    replied
    Originally posted by AprilRains View Post

    You lie. You don't want to hear shit. You like to tell people what they think, or what you think they should think.

    ​​​​​
    When was the last time you posted at least one paragraph going into what you think and why you think it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wounded Ronin
    replied
    Originally posted by PDA View Post
    Is this about sides or is this the court system working as it is intended ? as in non partisan decision making? what is the issue here?
    So the issue is that packing the court with judges who are expected to rule along party lines has been a thing in the United States. Since the House and the Senate try to not pass controversial legislation that they will later be held accountable for by voters, they have abdicated their responsibilities to the executive and to the supreme court. There was the perception among conservatives that the supreme court was legislating from the bench by making liberal rulings most of the time, and hence a political movement to pack the court with percieved conservative justices. Hence, the reaction when the supreme court upheld certain abortion rights and gay rights. With all that being said, now it seems that progressives are now likewise talking more openly than ever about packing the court for the same reason, to get favorable supreme court rulings.

    Since both sides have problematic positions on various wedge issues, either way feels unsafe.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X