Roe v Wade overturned.

[Hempy McNoodle]

At least Bernie walked his talk.

Not really.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Really

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If this is going to be a nuh-uh vs uh-huh I will be happy to engage.

 

[h.h.]

Bernie can walk and talk but he can’t win. He’d do more good as a private citizen. His ego won’t let him do that.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

He's better at walking and talking than Trump... Not as if it's very tough to accomplish.

Bernie was a mayor when Trump was still trying to get recognized as a real estate tycoon and corporate vandal.

Biden had been a congressman for years at that point.

I doubt that Bernie will ever be nominated by the DNC. He doesn't play ball like the guys who are in the running for the nod.

Only corporate schmoozing war mongers are invited to be the president, no matter which side of the aisle.

 

[Hydropony]

194 Republicans voted to ban condoms and birth control lmao

Sometimes I just don't have the words to describe what other people do. Has anyone seen this?
It seems to me that these 194 Republicans were simply offended that they were not in these pictures

 

[armedoldhippy]

Sometimes I just don't have the words to describe what other people do. Has anyone seen this?
It seems to me that these 194 Republicans were simply offended that they were not in these pictures.

you get to extrapolate & put whomever you want in there...i'm offended that they weren't in there too!

 

[Cannavore]

Bernie can walk and talk but he can’t win. He’d do more good as a private citizen. His ego won’t let him do that.

Bernie can't win because Bernie isn't allowed to win. The oligarchs who run this country said so.

 

[Hydropony]

you get to extrapolate & put whomever you want in there...i'm offended that they weren't in there too!

I can .. But it seems to me that such things should be applied to exceptional people.

 

[Tom Hill]

If I don't like you? If we have some fundamental ideological differences, please cull your progeny more of me less of you. The ONLY reason I would ever defer from that program is to make a slave of your ass.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

If I don't like you? If we have some fundamental ideological differences, please cull your progeny more of me less of you. The ONLY reason I would ever defer from that program is to make a slave of your ass.

This is exactly the reason Planned Parenthood was founded (to reduce the number of black babies born in the US). Abortion disproportionately targets unborn black folks to this day.

 

[moose eater]

They didn't make abortion illegal. They just say that 'the right to privacy' does not offer a constitutional protection for abortion rights. Just like your right to privacy doesn't guarantee you a right to own a methlab.

On the contrary. While the Feds don't acknowledge any real rightof privacy within the Bill of Rights, unless stretching and reaching for the 4th & 5th Amendments, some states DO have specific rights of privacy written into their state constitutions or statutes.

Alaska's Right of Privacy was amended into the State Constitution in about 1972,(Article 1, Section 22, "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infrionged." Period. And in fact was used as the basis to decriminalize cannabis in the 1975 Ravin v. State Decision by then-Chief Justice Rabinowitz (resulting from Plaintiff and former attorney, as well as accomplished cab driver, Irwin Ravin, now deceased).

Had similar arguments been made re. your analogous 'meth lab' scenario, and the counter-productivity, failure, and carnage of the War On (Some) Drugs were addressed in such a case, along with beter science re. amphetamine use/abuse in general, then a meth lab might (I said MIGHT) indeed become a matter of privcacy, providing there was no Commerce Clause issue raise3d that would again invite the feds into the matter.

But there has always been an implicit right of privacy in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. While not specific, the 9th Amendment makes it clear that not all unalienable rights are enumerated within the Constitution.

The folks who wrote the thing knew that. The Reich Wing 'justices' that just undid Roe apparently don't.

To that I advise that the next time they want to purchase a firearm, their choices be restricted to black powder muskets. That would be an 'originalist's or 'literalists' statement of consistency, imo.

The threshold for state intervention in private matters where such protections are acknowledged, is essentially that if the state doesn't intervene, it will detrimentally change the way in which society functions, or others will lose rights.

Since the courts determined LONG ago that a fetus is not a functioning, fully-developed human being, it doesn't have such rights as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.. The definitions of which are also not within, or enumerated in, the Bill of Rights, by the way..

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

On the contrary. While the Feds don't acknowledge any real rightof privacy within the Bill of Rights, unless stretching and reaching for the 4th & 5th Amendments, some states DO have specific rights of privacy written into their state constitutions or statutes.

Alaska's Right of Privacy was amended into the State Constitution in about 1972,(Article 1, Section 22, "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infrionged." Period. And in fact was used as the basis to decriminalize cannabis in the 1975 Ravin v. State Decision by then-Chief Justice Rabinowitz (resulting from Plaintiff and former attorney, as well as accomplished cab driver, Irwin Ravin, now deceased).

Had similar arguments been made re. your analogous 'meth lab' scenario, and the counter-productivity, failure, and carnage of the War On (Some) Drugs were addressed in such a case, along with beter science re. amphetamine use/abuse in general, then a meth lab might (I said MIGHT) indeed become a matter of privcacy, providing there was no Commerce Clause issue raise3d that would again invite the feds into the matter.

But there has always been an implicit right of privacy in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. While not specific, the 9th Amendment makes it clear that not all unalienable rights are enumerated within the Constitution.

The folks who wrote the thing knew that. The Reich Wing 'justices' that just undid Roe apparently don't.

To that I advise that the next time they want to purchase a firearm, their choices be restricted to black powder muskets. That would be an 'originalist's or 'literalists' statement of consistency, imo.

The threshold for state intervention in private matters where such protections are acknowledged, is essentially that if the state doesn't intervene, it will detrimentally change the way in which society functions, or others will lose rights.

Since the courts determined LONG ago that a fetus is not a functioning, fully-developed human being, it doesn't have such rights as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.. The definitions of which are also not within, or enumerated in, the Bill of Rights, by the way..

I wish I knew how to break this up into multiple quotes. I haven't figured out how to do that yet on the newer site. So I'll reply in chunks....

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

On the contrary. While the Feds don't acknowledge any real rightof privacy within the Bill of Rights, unless stretching and reaching for the 4th & 5th Amendments, some states DO have specific rights of privacy written into their state constitutions or statutes.

Alaska's Right of Privacy was amended into the State Constitution in about 1972,(Article 1, Section 22, "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infrionged." Period. And in fact was used as the basis to decriminalize cannabis in the 1975 Ravin v. State Decision by then-Chief Justice Rabinowitz (resulting from Plaintiff and former attorney, as well as accomplished cab driver, Irwin Ravin, now deceased).

There are two major schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the constitution; People who try to interpret it 'as written' and those who add all kinds of adaptations to make it a more flexible social contract. These interpretations can change. For example, Kavenaugh was asked about over-turning Roe vs Wade in his confirmation hearing. He said that it was "settled law." So, when it eventually did get over-turned, people accused Kavanaugh of being a liar. He explained that it was settled law and that they "unsettled it" (because it was in need of correction). The 'feds' do recognise the right to privacy in many instances and it is generally recognized in the constitution. The problem is that for the last 70-100+ years, there have been bad or corrupt rulings meant to take away constitutional rights.

So, the constitution does grant the right to privacy. The legislature has violated this time and time again. Remember, just because something is legal, does not mean that it is constitutional. That is the purpose of the Supreme court.

So, if a private matter is not protected federally, but a state has a constitutional right, that still does not change the legal status of the activity, just the rules of prosecuting it.

But, I feel that the point you make only strengthens the argument that this should be a states rights issue.

But, in any state, any right to privacy, is not a shield to violate the law.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Had similar arguments been made re. your analogous 'meth lab' scenario, and the counter-productivity, failure, and carnage of the War On (Some) Drugs were addressed in such a case, along with beter science re. amphetamine use/abuse in general, then a meth lab might (I said MIGHT) indeed become a matter of privcacy, providing there was no Commerce Clause issue raise3d that would again invite the feds into the matter.

Corruption has long been King. The war on drugs is unconstitutional and illegal. Technically a treason and mischarraige of justice. Those responsible for carrying it out, rightfully under the law, ought to be hanged or executed for Treason.

The MAGA agenda is to fix all of this. 100 years of corruption and bad court rulings. The MAGA agenda will shape this country into what it was meant to be and that is something very hard for people to imagine.

The goal is also to have no 'double-standards' in the law. Why would privacy protect a woman where abortion is not legal, but not an illegal meth lab? Abortion can't be legalized on the basis of privacy. It must be under a stronger precident or Privacy laws in general would have to be greatly expanded (to the point of allowing criminal and unconstitutional acts).

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

But there has always been an implicit right of privacy in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. While not specific, the 9th Amendment makes it clear that not all unalienable rights are enumerated within the Constitution.

The folks who wrote the thing knew that. The Reich Wing 'justices' that just undid Roe apparently don't.

Again, what does privacy have to do with the right to commit a crime?

Reich wing?

 

[armedoldhippy]

Fuck you guys for even having this conversation. I am deeply embarrassed and sorry milady

feel free to not participate in the discussion. were you invited? i would be embarrassed too if i posted 8 times in a row on one page, 8 times in a row on the next page, and they were all filled with bullshit & insults. did you learn turbo-posting from Stempy?

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

To that I advise that the next time they want to purchase a firearm, their choices be restricted to black powder muskets. That would be an 'originalist's or 'literalists' statement of consistency, imo.

The threshold for state intervention in private matters where such protections are acknowledged, is essentially that if the state doesn't intervene, it will detrimentally change the way in which society functions, or others will lose rights.

Since the courts determined LONG ago that a fetus is not a functioning, fully-developed human being, it doesn't have such rights as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.. The definitions of which are also not within, or enumerated in, the Bill of Rights, by the way..

I would say that an 'originalist' or 'literalistic' interpretation of the right to bare arms would be to expand what can be kept (weapons of war). And, yes; it can be a scary thought. Obviously people should not have nukes. But, one could easily argue that nukes are constitutional carry items. If this matter ever comes up, then it would probably come time to clarify the 2nd amendment via a constitutional convention.

You mentioned that:
"The threshold for state intervention in private matters where such protections are acknowledged, is essentially that if the state doesn't intervene, it will detrimentally change the way in which society functions, or others will lose rights."

But, this is not true. This is what authoritarians have attempted to claim durring the COVID lockdowns and mandates. They actually don't have the constitutional right to violate the constitution.

The courts never did determine whether or not a fetus has rights (as you allege that they have). This is the core of the problem. There have been people sentenced for killing a woman and her unborn child. So, in some cases killing a fetus is murder and in some it is not. This is a big problem (legally speaking).

If you get caught making sea turtle egg omolettes you will be violating the endangered species act. If you were to use the defense that 'the turtles weren't even born yet,' I doubt that would get you out of trouble.

 

[audiohi]

Corruption has long been King. The war on drugs is unconstitutional and illegal. Technically a treason and mischarraige of justice. Those responsible for carrying it out, rightfully under the law, ought to be hanged or executed for Treason.

The MAGA agenda is to fix all of this. 100 years of corruption and bad court rulings. The MAGA agenda will shape this country into what it was meant to be and that is something very hard for people to imagine.

The goal is also to have no 'double-standards' in the law. Why would privacy protect a woman where abortion is not legal, but not an illegal meth lab? Abortion can't be legalized on the basis of privacy. It must be under a stronger precident or Privacy laws in general would have to be greatly expanded (to the point of allowing criminal and unconstitutional acts).

Trump in DC speech calls for death penalty for convicted drug dealers​

“The penalties should be very, very severe. If you look at countries throughout the world, the ones that don’t have a drug problem are ones that institute a very quick trial death penalty sentence for drug dealers,” Trump said at the America First Policy Institute.

You're completely delusional.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Trump in DC speech calls for death penalty for convicted drug dealers​

You're completely delusional.

Chumply probably stole the idea from his buddy in the Philippines. next, he'll suggest the same for suspected RINOs... "but, why WON'T you back me when i try to steal the election? FUCK the constitution, and SCREW what the voters want! if i'm not put back in office, my fat ass is going to prison... do you see the damn problem now? "