Fresh Start Political Thread

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Religious protection under law…it’s a good thing. But you can’t sit here and say this rant when just months ago Barrett refused to hear whatever harassment of the left is doing to the cake making guy case.

U admit he is under harassment from these lame ass lgbtqisjfjth groups right? Suit after suit…this sits ok with you?

Religion is under assault right now.

Youre bringing up other things and doing "whataboutism".

Me personally Ive said repeatedly I dont think the cake baker should be required to make a special cake as that calls into his subjective artistic ability. I thought the cake baker was very reasonable. he showed them cake he had already made and offered to sell them any of those.

I dont support the short haired butch lesbian antifa side. Most democrats dont support defund the police or ACAB or antifa.

Religion is and should be protected. You shouldnt be discriminated against for religion, gender, color, race, sexual preference.

-------------------

Religious views should not be used to make and enforce laws. Amy and Brett both took an oath to uphold the law of the US and not put their religious beliefs before the law.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Youre bringing up other things and doing "whataboutism".

Me personally Ive said repeatedly I dont think the cake baker should be required to make a special cake as that calls into his subjective artistic ability. I thought the cake baker was very reasonable. he showed them cake he had already made and offered to sell them any of those.

I dont support the short haired butch lesbian antifa side. Most democrats dont support defund the police or ACAB or antifa.

Religion is and should be protected. You shouldnt be discriminated against for religion, gender, color, race, sexual preference.

-------------------

Religious views should not be used to make and enforce laws. Amy and Brett both took an oath to uphold the law of the US and not put their religious beliefs before the law.

This isn’t whatabout, it’s a case based in religious principles which the so called religious Justices refused recently. I think it’s relevant.

I think a little bit is too much is being made of the Texas thing even if I don’t agree with it. But I get the uproar, it’s a one of those sacred cows

[Chico23231]

Lotta folks stoking fear by claim Roe is overturned. This is not the case and misinformation

[Chico23231]

Let’s remember the golden rule everyone

[Chico23231]

What we continuously see, authoritarians hate to have their power checked.

Thank you Supreme Court

[mooby]

https://www.insider.com/texas-aborti...dfather-2021-5

One last thing and I'm done with the subject. It speaks to the intentions of the writers of the law that a 13 year old girl who was raped by her grandfather would be denied an abortion under the new law.

This is just the start too - other conservative states are just going to copy Texas' law because SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with it.

[SunnySide]

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. The Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong decision” to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.

As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.

Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/179432...kavanaugh-vote

Precedents ... what are they and how do they work?

I guess "precedents" will change whenever the bench changes.

Dangerous. SCOTUS is becoming a political football to be kicked around the field by whoever has the ball.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Went to a few sites, including Rueters and AP, to try to find some political news that a majority of both sides would agree on. Really couldn't find anything. No wonder why we seem way more divided than ever.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Went to a few sites, including Rueters and AP, to try to find some political news that a majority of both sides would agree on. Really couldn't find anything. No wonder why we seem way more divided than ever.

Well one easy one is that a majority of both sides did want to surrender in Afghanistan. How it was done is what the groups that wanted to surrender are debating.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

................................ surrender .

You don't seem to understand what this word means yet you keep using it.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Just something to change the conversation to a different topic. This is about the Fair Tax/National Sales Tax.

I'm not promoting it, just an article I read:

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/35525...-the-fair-tax/

[Chico23231]

I think my favorite reaction about the Texas thing outrage is the conspiracy theories are back from Blue Anon on social media…

Who PAID OFF Kavanaugh debt??

Why did Judge Kennedy suddenly Retire??


😂…those always getting me rolling around laughing

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think my favorite reaction about the Texas thing outrage is the conspiracy theories are back from Blue Anon on social media…

Who PAID OFF Kavanaugh debt??

Why did Judge Kennedy suddenly Retire??


😂…those always getting me rolling around laughing

Yet you push many of their theory's yourself in your own post's.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Press Secretary = Worst job in America

You have to be at least a little insane to want that job.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.