Leaderboard

Overturning Roe does not ban abortion, as you said, and I don't think as many states as people think will ban it. I suspect only the most conservative states will outright ban Roe. Most of the rest will probably end up somewhere around where Europe ultimately settled, 12-16 weeks. CDC claims 91% of abortions are week 13 or earlier. So you're probably not going to see enough of a crime spike to rue anything.

In a single sentence you prove my point. Exactly what is an "anti-Democratic opinion? Are you implying the court overruled a democratically enacted law on abortion? I'm not sure at this point that you understand the purpose of the SCOTUS. Or perhaps you aren't familiar with how Roe was ruled? I'm but a layman, but I'm pretty sure voting, not opinion polls are how democracies function, yes? Again, please point me to the democratically-enacted abortion law (either through direct voting or representative legislation) that the court has overturned here. Ok, you're fucking with me now, right? Who exactly do you think is *constitutionally charged* with determining what is correct in the constitution? I'll give you a hint, there are only 9 correct answers... This goes back to you not not understanding how an originalist works on the court. He did not call for re-examining whether you can use contraceptives with your wife. He called for re-examining whether that determination is meant to be a legislative one, or a judicial one. If you can't grasp the difference then this conversation will go nowhere. But you wouldn't be alone. Yes, exactly how Roe cited the 14th amendment. And yet there's nothing in the Fourteenth amendment that in any capacity protects abortion. This is where reading either Roe itself or the majority opinion would be valuable, as it quite clearly spells out the utter lack of support within the 14th amendment for abortion protections. Let's take a look: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Life and property obviously aren't at issue here (unless you mean the fetal life, which you don't). So we have liberty and equal protection. Now, if you believe that in 1868 the country believed that anti-abortion laws represented a threat to the liberty of women, I'm not sure you'll find much historical support for that. So liberty is out. And men are not given any special privilege to abort a fetus, not does constitutional law consider gender differences to be "unequal protection." So explain to me, slowly, because I don't read much, how the fourteenth amendment applies. This is another one of those strange misunderstandings of how the court works, which is much more eloquently explained in the majority opinion that I could ever hope to do. But this logic doesn't hold in any historical context, as we have some pretty heinous rulings that had to be overturned 50 plus years later to right egregious wrongs. I think every black American is quite happy that stare decisis is not immutable. I don't think you know as much as you think you know.

Holy god the new site is bad. One whole page just to show big ass buttons, a big ass picture of a dude sitting on his floor making arts and crafts, balance, and return YTD. I'd like to know how many tens of millions of dollars they paid to create this abomination.

This new TSP site is awful. I'm a knuckle-dragger, but I can only find basic account balances, not share price and shares. Anyone able to find a breakdown?

Yeah, people going off the rails on abortion being "banned," when the reality is more complex. The legality of abortion will be up to the states. There are various maps out there outlining the expected results state by state. My recollection is 26 states will leave abortion completely legal, a handful will outright ban abortions, and the rest will have a mix of bans after X amount of weeks. All subject to lawmaking in individual states, of course. And I think people may be surprised at how their state legislatures react. Almost 50 years since Roe was first passed, and many states have changed a lot in that time. Will be interesting to see if all the current marching in the street against the Supreme Court decision translates into people marching on their individual state houses. I'd like to think that would be the case, but for so many people, it seems their knowledge of the political process doesn't go beyond "My Team Good, Your Team Bad" and whatever clown show AOC is doing that week. I've heard the whole "abortions led to a decline in crime" idea before, but I've seen better arguments for the phase-out of lead gasoline leading to a decline in lead-related brain damage, and an associated drop in crime.

My co-teacher is a foster parent and he gets calls from the state on a weekly basis asking him to take in kids as it would seem the number of kids needing a home outnumbers the amount foster parents available. I would think the whole adoption system is in dramatic need of reform as from the people I know who have adopted it sounds nightmarishly bureaucratic and expensive. Of course, abortion isn't the answer either. I don't get the outright fanaticism the "pro-choicers" have over this. It's almost like sex was banned with the way they act. FFS, the need for abortion is easily avoided via birth control or abstinence ( the difference between us and animals is we supposedly can control our urges). Oh wait, that would require responsibility and self-control, the anthesis of Leftism. Funny how they whine about personal choice and freedom for abortion but want to regulate and control EVERY other aspect of the average American's life.

Also funny that the Democrats always seem to be upset whenever a precedent is overturned... Roe v Wade, Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott... As has been said elsewhere, 'I haven't seen the Democrats this upset since we took away their slaves!"

If that's the case, then those 60-65% of Americans can elect legislators to write and pass laws to make/keep abortion legal (or illegal). This is one of the fundamental points of the Dobbs decision and also 5th grade civics. Legislators make laws not judges. There is no more right to an abortion in the Constitution than there is to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

If it’s the will of the populace, why hasn’t the legislature enacted legislation? That’s the avenue for democracy in our system to establish policy, if you remember your basic education.

Man, nothing like having a relaxing cigar on the balcony on Bastion when those fuckers would light off.

I just want to add my .02 regarding the Ashley Bobbit part of the discussion. I'm in law enforcement (fed - Immigration) and like many others have gone on orders to get away from work (for a variety of reasons). As far as Bobbit and "resisting arrest", we'd have to know what the Capitol Police Use of Force rules are for deadly force. At my agency, there's no way we could have fired at her -- to put it in very generic terms that don't spill any details regarding our UoF policies, we can only use force that is equivalent to what's being used against us or another. If she wasn't armed, she wasn't a threat that needed to be dealt with using deadly force (i.e. firearms). The caveat is that they (Capital Police) may have different policies for protecting members of Congress. So, unless we know that, we're all speculating to some degree. I'll also throw in something else about law enforcement and immigration in general. During the Trump admin we were sending people to the SW Border for rotations to enforce US Law (Title 8 primarily). These were involuntary TDY's, and although many weren't excited about forced TDY's, at least we doing what we're trained to do (law enforcement). There are TDY's again under the current Admin, but these are simply to assist in processing aliens and then releasing them with a Notice to Appear (NTA) before EOIR at a later date. They're released into interior and almost none ever show for their court date. This is a deliberate decision by policy makers and ultimately the President himself. None of us can understand it. The border was quite secure until 18 months ago. Now it's wide open. A friend working at an airport for another immigration agency said he doesn't know why they bother processing pax or looking for bad guys. He said if anyone really wanted to harm us (like the 9/11 hijackers), it's easier for them to just go to Mexico and cross our southern border. At that point we wouldn't even have a record of their arrival and they'd have free reign within the country.

hey uhhh.....we have a thread for this shit

Ever read "The Heart of Darkness"? The parallels are unreal. Joseph Conrad's novel about colonial Africa, late 1800s I think. I had to read it for classes a couple times, once in high school and twice in college. "For a time I would feel I belonged still to a world of straightforward facts; but the feeling would not last long. Something would turn up to scare it away. Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech—and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives—he called them enemies!—hidden out of sight somewhere." Anyway that book inspired a couple follow-ons, the classic Apocalypse Now, the newer sci-fi movie Ad Astra, and a video game 10 years back or so called 'Spec-Ops: The Line'.

Maybe their plan is he will eat all of the Ukranians food and try to starve them all? Does Putin even know this guy is on his side? He may be pissed Putin lost McDonalds for Russia.

Are you in favor of providing any kind of support for those women who choose to carry to term? Many are single and can’t afford to leave the work force for any significant period of time. Or should we just force them to work through their pregnancy if they want to keep their job? Maybe give them a day or two off to actually give birth? What about mental health support for things like postpartum depression? Think most of these women have great healthcare plans? Yeah, yeah, guess they should’ve thought of that before they decided to be promiscuous (typically uttered by dudes that would’ve banged pretty much any available warm hole in their 20s).

Thanks for the post. My response to SocialD was wrt adoption. For some reason there are people (most on the left…not sure of SocialD’s philosophy) who actually think that there are massive amount of babies, that if given up for adoption, would not be able to find homes. I think it’s great that parents are willing to foster children…though more foster care isn’t the solution as it’s still part of the broken system. Adoption, preferably at birth, fixes many of those problems. For some reason those on the left never publicly voice support for mothers with unwanted pregnancies to have their babies and give them up for adoption.

Anyone get offered Continuation to 24, or are only offering 20? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really good 15 min video on the recent SCOTUS ruling and Thomas’ opinion regarding the 2A. BL: This could be huge in striking down many gun control laws in the future.

It’s out of category Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. This is the feature, not a bug. Negatory, and others, when you signed up to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, did you not understand the system of government we have? It’s working as intended.. for the most part.

It's pedantic to just come back and say you need to look up what democracy is supposed to be (though you do), but you probably won't so I'll give you two sentences about what ours is here: we have a democratically elected government wherein three coequal branches of government share power. This was done to avoid what you'd like - which is a tyranny of the majority. Our system makes it impossible for 51 people to tell 49 others how to live. Sorry about it, but your misconception of this as anti-democratic is uncompelling. Likewise, appeals to what "polls" show Americans want are lackluster arguments. The only poll that matters is the one that takes place at the ballot box on voting day. Most Americans (including me up until last week) don't even know what Roe v Wade actually established. Spoiler alert, I looked it up, and Roe v Wade did not establish a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion. Roe v Wade held the following: It's amazing what you can learn when you read the actual decisions. In practice, this may be implemented in a manner that allows a woman to tell her physician that she needs an abortion and be granted one, but the case does not establish a "woman's right to choose." It absolutely does no such thing. So polls about subjects Americans have no, or limited, or misinformed levels of understanding can be safely disregarded. And more than that, the court is supposed to call balls and strikes; to keep the legislature and executive branches in check - not to express the will of the people. Seriously, I can't believe this has to even be stated, let alone defended. Read up on what the difference is between due process and substantive due process is. They deal with two esoteric legal concepts. I included the relevant text from Thomas' opinion since you are either haven't read, are misapprehending the case, or intentionally misconstruing it to support your viewpoint. Thomas isn't saying birth control should be made illegal. He's saying the basis upon which that case, and others like it, was decided needs to be re-evaluated. You can disagree about that, but there it is for you in black and white. On Griswold specifically, Connecticut was the only state in the union that had outlawed contraception, so that case really was about bringing an outlier back into line with the "thrust" of the rest of the country. Hence, gasping about how this case is somehow now endangered ignores both the historical context (49 to 1) and the temporal reality that it was decided before Roe (1965). Duh! Finally, the liberal dissent from the opinion is farcical. Out of one corner of their mouth, they lament that the majority in Dobbs reads history "all the way back to the 13th century (the 13th!)," while simultaneously, they ignore the fact that the case which kicked off this whole thing, Roe, in fact discussed Aristotelian philosophy, the Pythagorean school, ancient Jewish tradition, etc...in short, they need to get real. They are completely disingenuous and insincere in their overall approach to this case. Also note their parenthetical exclamation. It reads more like an activist's polemic than it does a serious legal treatise seeking to deal fairly with the law and the majority opinion.

I'm not arguing the merits of your position, but the reasoning you're using. 1) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic, with democratic elements. The majority opinion that matters is the majority of States...not population. Without looking at the cross-tabs and the sampling methodology of the un-named polls you're referencing, I'm assuming most of your top-line number here is concentrated in CA and NY and not representative of the country as a whole. 2) The Supreme Court isn't designed to factor in popular opinion, it only uses the Constitution as it's grading criteria. Its apolitical, and as such, does not have a charter to reflect the 'will of the people' directly. It only reflects the 'will of the people' through deciding the constitutionality of specific cases before it. It also does not advise elected officials on possible constitutionality prior to policy/statute enactment. There may be an argument to pass some sort of Right to Privacy act that was used as the foundation for the original Roe case in the 1970s. But regardless, it's an issue that needs a legislative solution, not a court driven one. Call your Congressman, both locally in your state of residence, and in D.C.

Any argument against your opinion is not implicitly anti democratic, however you have no interest in arguing honestly.

You fundamentally do not understand the constitution, and thus do not understand Thomas. *Exactly* like Roe and the inferred right to privacy, substantive due process is a concept that has no actual basis in the constitution. Therefore regardless of their views, an originalist will oppose such precedents. The inability to separate legal reasoning from personal beliefs is a foundational flaw in progressive ideology. If you have the time, read the dissent with the specific focus of finding constitutional arguments. In over 60 pages, there are none. But on the risks of losing birth control and gay marriage, if we're cherry-picking non-majority concurrences, here's some from Kavanaugh, who will be on the court long after Thomas retires. "First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar- riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents." "For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause" Roe proved that you can't answer deep societal debates with court-derived solutions. Now the system can once again work as intended. The population of each state gets to decide what is best for themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Or a federal law protecting abortion can be passed. Or a constitutional amendment can be ratified. But if those solutions aren't reasonable, then maybe the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy.

Side note: Had this exact conversation with my 14 year old yesterday as we watched an episode of “For All Mankind”. Great show for those who haven’t seen it. Posits the Soviet’s beat us to the moon & the space race heats up big time, leading to massive & rapid technological development. Maybe some great power competition is good for us. On the flip side, the renewed threat of mutual nuclear annihilation kinda sucks.

Took me one week in February Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

First, it’s rich to say that the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy when a very unpopular, anti-democratic, opinion was passed. Almost all polls show 60-65% of Americans support Roe - nearly 2:1. Now if you wanna make some bullshit argument about how the Supreme Court represents our republic or something, go for it, but I’d recommend you look up what a democracy is supposed to be. Also, it’s rich to say that I don’t understand something that is clearly extraordinarily contentious and not understandable. Its an opinion. It’s also rich to say that Thomas determines what is correct in the constitution. Also, Thomas’s written opinion was a majority concurrence, not a non-majority. My point, which is 100% valid, is that a real Supreme Court justice in the majority of this case is calling for some really ridiculous things in a real Supreme Court ruling. He called for re-examining whether I as a married person can use contraceptives with my wife behind closed doors. Also, you’re lying about the dissenting opinion having no constitutional basis. They clearly used the 14th amendment, but I don’t expect you to read, as you’ve demonstrated a curious aptitude for avoiding facts over many years now. Just to be clear, Roe was upheld precedent for the last 50 years and was reaffirmed in Casey. Just because this court changed their mind doesn’t mean that this court is correct or that the previous 7-2 ruling was incorrect. This doesn’t “prove” anything other than packing the court with conservative judges gives a different result. Congratulations. At this point, it’s easy to see the court as a politicized, less neutral, branch of government. Time to pack it up! How about, say, 21 justices? We can probably get 12 more before congress turns over to the republicans, no more rules! Why not? Oh, there’s precedent for there to be just 9 Supreme Court justices? Precedent doesn’t matter anymore.

Any argument against the total combined will of the American people isn’t anti democratic? It is clearly anti democratic. It’s not implicitly anti republic. What does arguing honestly mean, by the way? Did my opinion based on philosophy and reasonable arguments hurt your feelings?

Yeah, actually, beyond all your other fallacies, let’s address whether government has an obligation to the American people to maintain a court that accurately represents the will of the people. Seems like there may be a moral imperative to bring the court back in line with American values in whatever way necessary, up to and including adding more moderate members to the court. Remember, any argument against this is implicitly anti democratic. Good luck.