The Right religious conservatives and who knows who else have today overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US.
Will this now embolden anti abortionists in this country to fight back?
The US is a cold place for women now.
The same heads who said they would leave if Trump won. None did.
Many were celebs who in fact became much more wealthy thanks to Trump tax cuts. They won't mention that bit though
Absolute flakes.
i'm talking about the protestors who have been threatening to burn the streets as usual, plus didn't an activist try to murder one of the judges a few days ago?
Great to see that rioters and psychopaths didn't win
And now we're at the fantasy 'mob' stage because f*ck women, eh?
The type of Americans that are allegedly fleeing to Canada aren't going to be missed. America has nothing to gain from extreme progressive left, as witnessed in the last few years. let them go
it's great that the Supreme Court didn't give in to the mob. That's a victory in itself
A foundation for an argument?
Wha?
I posted about something that happened- you want to argue what exactly?
My favourite SC decision was when they gave half of Oklahoma back to the Indians.
Though like now they were essentially throwing it back to the local legislature, saying this legislation is outside the Court's purview anyway so write laws to deal with it yourself.
The only one who's frantic here is you. I saw them all on Twitter, without "frantically scouring" if you must know. This seems to be the new line though, anytime someone comes across anything that makes the left look bad, they get accused of going out of their way to find this stuff.
You've 'seen' these references? Or you've been frantically scouring the darkest corners of the Internet looking for them to back up your 'argumernt'?
Also a dive into a world of posters who think that Twitter is ever a good foundation for any argument. It's just an example of how much of a cesspool Twitter is, full of angry disturbed people all the way along the spectrum.
There will be a political aspect but generally it doesn't affect the quality save where countries like Poland are deliberately and actively trying to make up their own judicial system to suit themselves. I think the US problem is down to the fact that it is based off a document that is 250 years old and is open to very wide interpretation depending on where a justice is positioned on that text. More modern constitutions are more explicit and easier to interpret.
A dive into the world of : "Its OK when we do it "
Roe and the latter one, Casey were bad laws - denied states to democratically legislate -
Roe, allowed for the barbaric, Late-Term abortion, Partial-Birth abortion, and Gender Selective abortion
Now states whose laws were usurped by Roe, can be implemented, and other states can nuance their laws, in state legislatures and by propositions/referenda.
I've always known that was the case, but usually they go for "Uncles Toms" instead of N bombs.
Here's a thread full of examples for anyone who's interested:
Yes, these kind of issues are inevitable as long as the SC members are political appointees. That link needs to be broken but very difficult to figure out a way to do that. This is not solely a US issue, most countries have an equivalent set up where appointments are politically based.
They like African Americans as long as they know their place on the Democrat plantation and parrot the views of rich White activists.
As a black person said in reply to him. The progressives either see them as acceptable n18834s or just field n18834s.
Just imagine the anger from many of them if Clarence Thomas was Jewish.
Making the court so partisan is why people get to freely use nominally disparaging terms like leftist and conservative. It's supposed to be about the law and the Constitution and it's not. It's now whatever people issues some groups have and whether they can get the SC to undo them. Thomas seems to be game for anything, thanks to his very narrow view of the world at this stage and at least 2-3 more could be very easily persuaded to follow him.
There was a screenshot going around from an leftist on twitter who posted that the judges need to be pull from their homes and executed on the street.
The post remained up despite many many people reporting it to Twitter. In the end the guy deleted his account after his full name, address and occupation began to circulate.
Good ol mob justice
Ah I see we’re at the stage of portraying men as victims now.
Men are free to walk away from their responsibilities if they so choose.
However, it’s not the same as a woman having a medical procedure, so naturally will be judged differently.
Scumbag to do so. But I've also never heard of this man and he's not exactly prominent. Any random white person who claims to be anti racist and uses the term is not.
I absolutely have a problem with Clarence Thomas but that's for his decision to target everything from abortion to gay marriage. His wife's effort to overturn the election result should also have him up for impeachment. But using racial slurs against him, absolutely **** not.
It's incredibly sad and disgusting.
I know many women and girls were genuinely upset by the decision. People who were survivors of rape, who could have potentially had to make a decision to carry a pregnancy to full term... the toll it would take. Ectopic pregnancies, endometriosis or some form of illness that would potentially put their lives at risk.
It's impossible to state how serious this decision is.
It's just a reminder of how invested political entities, even those outside, are in the US SC and how extraordinarily partisan it has become. It makes people angry and they can succumb to their absolute worst selves. As I posted earlier in the thread the SC is no longer respected nor well-regarded and increasingly a place to just settle ideological scores.
WTF is going on? I've seen several "anti racists" calling Clarence the N word in the last few days.
I'm inclined to agree. It's about the money, there's a reason people move here.
People who are in a financially feasible position to relocate because of Texas's position on abortion are likely also in a financially feasible position to seek an abortion out of state and thus have no particular incentive to relocate. Whatever about the merits of Texas's legislation, I see few people moving as a result of it.
Why is it not ok to ask Qs? Because it’s no one’s business expect the woman’s. How is that hard to grasp?
there was a time when I had a bit of resect for that nation. Not any more. Gone to hell in a preachers underwear they have. Something radical is needed when an ex president can dictate laws for a country and that country needs to stand up and do someting about it.
And so was building the best infrastructure in the world. Trump is a piece of **** who'll say whatever he thinks will get the biggest reaction at any particular point.
Trump claimed to be pro-choice back when he was planning for the 2000 election. Universal healthcare was also one of his main platforms. I wonder if claiming he masterminded this will do much for him or if he has served his purpose now as far as the established GOP is concerned. There would be something fitting in seeing in that.
If you think folks are going to upsticks out of Texas and surrounding states because abortion is less available then you're totally deluded. But I suppose it's par for the course for the liberal lefty - thinking that people move to a place because they love pride, access to abortion, multiculturalism and diversity (of their kind). Never about the money in their pockets at the end of the day, no, no, no!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
