Republicans: continued

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:46 pm
Mother Jones overstates the matter by far. [Snipped dubious justification for this assertion.]
Since your propounding on matters of law is inevitably roused in support of the legal reasoning of conservative ideologues, it's no surprise that you've chosen to fawn over Thomas's decision while dismissing Breyer's dissent. The problem is that Breyer does an effective job of eviscerating Thomas's specious claims regarding the basis of mandatory sovereign immunity as applied to states.
Fawn over? I don't even really agree with Thomas' decision. I think both arguments on the issue decided in the Thomas decision are reasonable. That's often the case in these matters. Which side won was not really the issue at hand - it was whether this was some ominous portent of doom

Breyer does a good job on his dissent - these are Justices of the Supreme Court - I've read hundreds of SCOTUS opininos and dissents. The dissents are almost always well reasoned and persuasive. Cases that make the Supreme Court's certiorari review are generally close cases. And, those that get appointed to the Supreme Court tend to be very experienced jurists who can write very well-reasoned opinions.

What's odd is that you seem to think the issue of whether an individual can sue the State of California in Nevada State courts is some sort of major political divide, with the evil conservatives wanting to evilly prevent people from suing one state in the courts of another state. And Thomas's view is of course, stupid in your mind, but Breyer is so well reason he "eviscerated" Thomas. Of course, if you read the dissent, Breyer acknowledges that the position Thomas goes with - which was the dissent 40 years ago -- was well-reasoned too, and may even have been the correct decision -- however, Breyer spends quite a bit of ink talking about how even if a decision is "wrong" that ought not mean the SCOTUS corrects its own error.

Breyer does a good job explaining why the older case should not have been reversed. However, Thomas addresses the test of when a case should be reversed, and he made a different decision. Breyer acknowledges in his dissent that reasonable jurists could differ on the underlying opinion.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any provision for such mandatory sovereign immunity, neither is there any solid historical basis for it. Even Thomas's historical authority, de Vattel, says that sovereign immunity is based on consent and convention--in de Vattel's time it was conditional and not absolute. That principle still obtains in international law, which has in fact become more restrictive in regard to claims of sovereign immunity, not less. Thomas and the majority construct their doctrine of mandatory sovereign immunity for states by ignoring this and engaging in the same finding of implicit constitutional principles that 'originalists' and 'strict constructionists' like Thomas are supposedly so suspicious of. As this decision shows, Thomas quite happily finds unstated elements in the US Constitution when it suits his ideological agenda.
You may be correct -- I'm not persuaded 100% by either side on this argument. However, that's not the issue as to whether this is some ominous portent of doom for opinions everywhere, that the majority may willy-nilly reject -- for example, Roe v Wade, which would not only require reversal of ONE opinion, but multiple SCOTUS opinions recognizing a fundamental right to abortion.

Further, there isn't a side on this that does not "find unstated elements in the US constitution when it suits his ideological agenda." Fuck, Roe v Wade itself is based on "unstated elements" -- it found a fundamental right to privacy "implied" by a couple amendments to the constitution, and there was no majority opinion as to where the right comes from, just that it exists in the constitution, even though it's unstated. To say that it's a problem to find something in the constitution that isn't expressly stated might hoist some folks on their own petard. That's why I don't ever say that something must be expressly in the constitution.

I have no principled objection to courts finding unstated elements in the Constitution, as long as it makes sense legally and constitutionally. For example, the SCOTUS found that the US federal government has authority over immigration, not just naturalization, yet that's not stated in the constitution. There is no right to vote for the President in the US constitution.

Now if you want to delve into the 40 year old opinion, and Thomas' new opinion, and argue about what technically the right decision was or would be, we can have an interesting discussion on that point. However, it likely will be tough for us to wind up much closer than "both sides have reasonable arguments" -- which is one of the things Breyer said in his dissent.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

There is also the question of infringement by the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment. Breyer: 'Compelling States to grant immunity to their sister States would risk interfering with sovereign rights that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States,' and 'While reaffirming Hall might harm States seeking sovereign immunity, overruling Hall would harm States seeking to control their own courts.'
You've hit the crux of the differing judicial view as to what the immunity is and where it comes from. Generally, governmental immunity is held by the government and the government can waive it. What Breyer is saying is that Nevada can subject California to suit whether California consents or not. That's like saying that the Netherlands can let a suit go forward against the US in Netherlands courts, and the only way the US could assert its sovereign immunity is if the Netherlands lets it. The US can consent to be sued in some other country's courts, but it can't be compelled to do so just because some other country says the US doesn't have sovereign immunity.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am
The majority decision here does not justify pooh-poohing Breyer's warning regarding throwing out stare decisis.
Stare decisis hasn't been "thrown out." That's my point. Stare decisis is not a mechanical rule - SCOTUS can, and regularly does, reverse decisions. The majority in this case concluded that it should reverse itself. The dissent thinks it shouldn't. Both sides have rationale as to why it should or shouldn't. My only position on that was that it's not some sort of ominous portent of doom, hailing an era of reversals of settled SCOTUS precedent.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

Breyer doesn't say that even if the decision in Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to because it didn't cause problems.
He does say that. Flat out.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

He cites the principle that 'an argument that we got something wrong—even a good argument to that effect—cannot by itself justify scrapping settled precedent' (emphasis mine).
That's the same thing as saying "even if the decision in Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to... scrapping it isn't justified by mere wrongness.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am


He goes on to state that Hall is not obviously wrong.
exactly - hence the use of the term "even if..." - I didn't say Breyer said Hall WAS wrong, I said he noted that "even if" it was wrong, it doesn't justify scrapping it. It's a common legal method -- assuming without admitting. Dispose of the opponent's argument by assuming a premise to be true, and concluding that "even if what you say is true, you still lose..."
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

To me it's clear that if it were obviously wrong, Thomas wouldn't have had to spend so much time attempting to justify overturning it.
Well, then you haven't read that many SCOTUS opinions. These are generally close cases, or they wouldn't make it to the SCOTUS in the first place. Where you have dissents, the opinions tend to address the issues raised in the dissent, and vice versa, so they tend to extend longer for that reason. They talk about the cases - that's why Thomas knows what the dissent is arguing and can address it in his opinion, and that's how the dissent knows and can address Thomas' view, even though the two opinions come out at the same time.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am


The final paragraph of the dissent it telling:
It is one thing to overrule a case when it “def[ies] practical workability,” when “related principles of law have so
far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,” or when “facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 854–855. It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question. The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall even though it is a well-reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it. Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next. I respectfully dissent.
Sure and he makes a good point -- but "well reasoned" doesn't mean "the correct legal decision..." Both sides are well-reasoned.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am


I think that Antonin Scalia was correct (Thomas 'doesn't believe in stare decisis, period'). Instead Thomas specifically relies on his originalist understanding of the Constitution to claim that Hall 'failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity.' While Breyer shows that claim is unfounded, Thomas nonetheless is a staunch originalist, if not a notably consistent one.

In any event, as Jay Michaelson writes:
This [whether originalism/strict constructionalism should rule the day] is the central question in cases like Roe and Obergefell. No one denies that abortion was banned for much of our country’s history, and that same-sex marriage would have been anathema to the Founders of the republic. The debate is over whether history gets a vote or a veto.

If this same standard is applied to Roe and Obergefell, they would go down in flames.
Further, Thomas is on record stating that he believes Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided.' Given his willingness to scrap stare decisis in service of his ideology (and the conservative majority on the court's willingness to follow him down that path) there is good reason for those who support a woman's right to control her own body to be apprehensive regarding what might happen when one of the bullshit state laws outlawing abortion makes its way to the US Supreme Court.
A lot of people are on record as saying Roe was wrongly decided. It was an unusual supreme court decision at the time, and even today. I think the Daily Beast forgets that stare decisis has never been a hard and fast rule in the SCOTUS because SCOTUS doesn't actually bind itself, just like a President can reverse a past President's executive order and just like the legislature can't make a law which says it can never be undone (binding the future generations because they legislated first), the SCOTUS can and does reverse its own decisions. Stare Decisis is a rule of judicial restraint and caution -- such that the SCOTUS provides some framework for when and if it will reverse its own decisions. It's not been "scrapped."

A woman's right to "control her own body?" -- you can see the Daily Beast's ideology coming to the fore, and that's really where this is - a battle of opinion on abortion. And, the Daily Beast gets a couple things wrong right off the bat - first, Roe v Wade did not "permit" abortion, and Loving v VA did not "permit" same sex marriage. They ruled that the State government may not prohibit them -- it in no way permitted anything. States were always free to permit them. Also, with regard to abortion, Roe did not say women have the right to always control their own bodies -- men don't have the right to ALWAYS control their own bodies - nobody does. What Roe did say was that there is a right to privacy IMPLIED in the constitution, and that in the first trimester that right of privacy is so strong that that the state may not prohibit (or even restrict) abortion, but that after the first trimester and into the second and third trimester, the States and fetuses interests grow and there can be restriction, regulation and eventually prohibition (third trimester) except in the case of grave threats to the mother which Roe said had to be excepted.

And, if Roe and Casey and the other abortion opinions recognizing the right to privacy including abortion were reversed, all that would happen is that the majority will would control. To me, I find that odd that so many people who scoff at the archaic US notions of fundamental rights which may not be infringed upon are so much in favor of it in this one instance - where abortion is concerned. There, they throw democracy out the window, and it's perfectly fine to limit the will of the majority. I agree with them - I want it thrown out too - I'm just not sure what, other than ideology, they're hanging their hat on to say that in the case of abortion, people should have a right to abortion that the majority may not limit, but that in the case of say, free speech, if the majority declare something to be hate speech, then that's just fine.

Me - I'm not ideological on this - I'm PERSONALLY against abortion, but I also believe a woman's right to privacy means that her decision to abort should be between her and her doctor, and if the majority agree with me (as they appear to do in Alabama), then that majority opinion means something between jack and squat.

Anyway - you're free to consider this decision as some bigtime warning that Roe's days are numbered, but I don't see it. And, its' fine for us to disagree. We agree that the majority in the 40 year old case was at least a reasoned statement of the law. I think we disagree that the dissent 40 years ago was a reasoned statement of the law, but maybe not - you might agree, we really haven't covered that. You disagree that Thomas' decision the other day makes sense, and you think Breyer is dead on. I think there is reasoned support for both the majority and the dissent.

So, at bottom, I don't think there is much reason for big fight about this, or for accusations and mudslinging. But, that hasn't stopped it from happening before....
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Thu May 16, 2019 2:35 pm

Tero wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 12:06 pm
7CE22FDF-E7CB-46EB-B094-6524F43103CC.jpeg
Tu quoque!!!! Tu quoque!!!! Tu quoque!!!!

Not relevant!!!

This is only about abortion -- pointing out how someone else doesn't care about something else does not provide support for your argument. After all, they may be assholes, but you may also. Assuming without admitting that "pro life republicans don't care about babies...." doesn't mean prochoice democrats are caring when they support partially extracting 6 month fetuses and crushing their skulls and removing their brains.

Heck, if you got to that fetus a few minutes earlier, when it was only half out of the vagina, you could have your wish and crush it's head. You're so caring.

:biggrin:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28553
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 3:12 pm

I wonder how many babies the average hunter gatherer woman euthanized in her day? You can carry one baby and have a 5 year old in tow. But you cannor carry a newborn, a 1 year old and a two year old.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11531
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu May 16, 2019 3:18 pm

Wouldn't they just spread the workload around?
shut up

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28553
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 3:35 pm

Very few lived past 30, so old people were not around to take care of grand kids.

There's not been a proper study but hunter gatherers in Africa do euthanize babies not born far enough apart. If a mother died at childbirth, not likely the male would take on an infant. He had all the other kids to carry on with.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu May 16, 2019 4:13 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
What's odd is that you seem to think the issue of whether an individual can sue the State of California in Nevada State courts is some sort of major political divide, with the evil conservatives wanting to evilly prevent people from suing one state in the courts of another state. And Thomas's view is of course, stupid in your mind, but Breyer is so well reason he "eviscerated" Thomas. Of course, if you read the dissent, Breyer acknowledges that the position Thomas goes with - which was the dissent 40 years ago -- was well-reasoned too, and may even have been the correct decision -- however, Breyer spends quite a bit of ink talking about how even if a decision is "wrong" that ought not mean the SCOTUS corrects its own error.
It's an ineffective tactic to misrepresent the position of your interlocutor when you have no other means of discrediting them. I haven't claimed that Thomas's decision here is evil or stupid--that's a pure fabrication on your part.

Breyer actually spends most of the dissent examining the legal basis of sovereign immunity, and why the majority decision misconstrues not only its historical structure but also its manifestation in US law. While he does address the issue of overturning possibly wrongly decided cases, it's an exaggeration to call that 'quite a bit of ink.'
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
You may be correct -- I'm not persuaded 100% by either side on this argument. However, that's not the issue as to whether this is some ominous portent of doom for opinions everywhere, that the majority may willy-nilly reject -- for example, Roe v Wade, which would not only require reversal of ONE opinion, but multiple SCOTUS opinions recognizing a fundamental right to abortion.
As Breyer points out, there have been other decisions in the US Supreme Court that followed the precedent set by Hall, and cases which preceded it were also guided by the principle of discretion being allowed to states on the question of sovereign immunity. It's not 'ONE opinion' that was overturned by this decision.
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
Further, there isn't a side on this that does not "find unstated elements in the US constitution when it suits his ideological agenda." Fuck, Roe v Wade itself is based on "unstated elements" -- it found a fundamental right to privacy "implied" by a couple amendments to the constitution, and there was no majority opinion as to where the right comes from, just that it exists in the constitution, even though it's unstated. To say that it's a problem to find something in the constitution that isn't expressly stated might hoist some folks on their own petard. That's why I don't ever say that something must be expressly in the constitution.
Thomas calls himself a strict constructionist, but then throws that out the window when it suits his agenda, as in this case.
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
You've hit the crux of the differing judicial view as to what the immunity is and where it comes from. Generally, governmental immunity is held by the government and the government can waive it. What Breyer is saying is that Nevada can subject California to suit whether California consents or not.

He argues in favor of the idea that Nevada (or any other state) has had the right to either allow cases like this one to go forward, or to grant sovereign immunity to its 'sister states.' It's in the very first paragraph of the dissent. Most of the dissent is taken up by Breyer showing that historically the granting of sovereign immunity has been a matter of discretion in international law and by constitutional precedent the same principle applied within the United States.
But the question here is whether the Federal Constitution requires each State to grant its sister States immunity, or whether the Constitution instead permits a State to grant or deny its sister States immunity as it chooses.

We answered that question 40 years ago in Nevada v.Hall, 440 U. S. 410 (1979). The Court in Hall held that the Constitution took the permissive approach, leaving it up to each State to decide whether to grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity. Today, the majority takes the contrary approach—the absolute approach—and overrules Hall. I can find no good reason to overrule Hall, however, and I consequently dissent.
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am
The majority decision here does not justify pooh-poohing Breyer's warning regarding throwing out stare decisis.
Stare decisis hasn't been "thrown out." That's my point. Stare decisis is not a mechanical rule - SCOTUS can, and regularly does, reverse decisions. The majority in this case concluded that it should reverse itself. The dissent thinks it shouldn't. Both sides have rationale as to why it should or shouldn't. My only position on that was that it's not some sort of ominous portent of doom, hailing an era of reversals of settled SCOTUS precedent.
Your opinion is noted. I happen to believe that Breyer has more credibility than you on this question. He explains clearly that the rationale used by the majority for overturning the decision does not in fact meet a rigorous standard, which is why he questions what other decisions might be overturned merely on the basis that a majority on the court believe that a previous case was 'wrongly decided.'
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:31 pm
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am
Breyer doesn't say that even if the decision in Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to because it didn't cause problems.
He does say that. Flat out.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

He cites the principle that 'an argument that we got something wrong—even a good argument to that effect—cannot by itself justify scrapping settled precedent' (emphasis mine).
That's the same thing as saying "even if the decision in Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to... scrapping it isn't justified by mere wrongness.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am
He goes on to state that Hall is not obviously wrong.
exactly - hence the use of the term "even if..." - I didn't say Breyer said Hall WAS wrong, I said he noted that "even if" it was wrong, it doesn't justify scrapping it. It's a common legal method -- assuming without admitting. Dispose of the opponent's argument by assuming a premise to be true, and concluding that "even if what you say is true, you still lose..."
You're contradicting yourself here. You're unable to support your assertion that Breyer 'flat out' said that even if the previous decision was wrong it should be upheld, and that's because he doesn't say that. He says that arguments that a decision was wrong should not carry the day on their own. They should be supported by the standard elucidated in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: If a law 'def[ies] practical workability' and 'related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,' and 'facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,' then there is sufficient reason to overturn. In other words, even if a simple majority of the court believes that a previous case was wrongly decided, that should not be sufficient to overturn. The fact that the conservative majority decided to overturn Hall because they believe it was wrongly decided and did not feel bound by the standards put forward in Casey is what leads Breyer to sound a warning.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24631
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 16, 2019 4:49 pm

Tero wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:12 pm
I wonder how many babies the average hunter gatherer woman euthanized in her day? You can carry one baby and have a 5 year old in tow. But you cannor carry a newborn, a 1 year old and a two year old.
We're a social species.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28553
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Not so much then. People lived in very small clans, who had friendly relations to a few neighboring clans. The yearly wanderings led to the same people camping the same places year after year.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24631
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 16, 2019 7:27 pm

Tero wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm
Not so much then. People lived in very small clans, who had friendly relations to a few neighboring clans. The yearly wanderings led to the same people camping the same places year after year.
You have to remember that until 20C infant mortality rates were horrendous. You didn't have to euthanise as a means of population control, it would just never occur - you were lucky if the nippers made it through their first winter.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28553
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 7:34 pm

The women learn to deal with this situation. When they saved an unwanted badly scheduled baby, they lost all the rest in the year that followed, except the teens. Since babies commonly died in the first few months, nobody would ask if a newborn "disappeared."
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28553
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 8:19 pm

A718446E-CB4F-4320-9A7E-E060E7002EB2.jpeg
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 50593
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 17, 2019 12:33 am

:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri May 17, 2019 4:10 am

The president of the United States nominated this disgusting loon to a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary, and the fucking Republican controlled US Senate confirmed her appointment. Just another fine day in the dumpster fire.

'Republicans Confirm Activist Who Thinks Abortion Causes Cancer to Lifetime Federal Judge Appointment'
Senate Republicans have just confirmed Wendy Vitter, a highly controversial anti-abortion activist, to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench in Louisiana.

Vitter believes abortion causes cancer, and "promoted a brochure that links birth control to 'violent death,'" as Vanity Fair reports.

During her confirmation hearing Vitter refused to say if she believes the U.S. Supreme Court case that codified the concept that "separate but equal" is not equal, was decided correctly. Ironically, perhaps, the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education is Friday.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4550
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Seabass » Fri May 17, 2019 5:30 am

Jesus, this idiot might actually be dumber than Louie Gohmert.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/the-most ... -vote.html
The debate demonstrated the degree to which reproductive rights are under attack in this country — and there was perhaps no better example than the man who sponsored the bill in the senate, Republican Clyde Chambliss, who made many confusing and ignorant comments in the course of the debate. Here are some of the most horrifying things he said.

Per the Daily Beast, Chambliss’s ignorance was on full display in his opening statement, when he admitted to not being “trained medically” and thereby uncertain of how women can tell if they are pregnant — which one might think is important information to have when pushing a six-week ban.

“I’m not trained medically so I don’t know the proper medical terminology and timelines. But from what I’ve read, what I’ve been told, there’s some period of time before you can know a woman is pregnant.”

The senator also kept making references to women being able to end pregnancies before they know they are pregnant.
Chambliss continually said that a woman could end her pregnancy if she did not know she was pregnant, which many have taken to be a reference to the morning-after pill, according to reporter Abbey Crain.

"There's a window of time when a woman knows shes pregnant that every option that's on the table now is available. She has to do something to know whether she's pregnant or not. It takes time for all the chromosomes to come together."
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. ―H.L. Mencken

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad. —Thomas Frank

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. —Einstein
I’m a nationalist. —Trump

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Hermann Göring

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24631
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 17, 2019 11:07 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:10 am
The president of the United States nominated this disgusting loon to a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary, and the fucking Republican controlled US Senate confirmed her appointment. Just another fine day in the dumpster fire.

'Republicans Confirm Activist Who Thinks Abortion Causes Cancer to Lifetime Federal Judge Appointment'
Senate Republicans have just confirmed Wendy Vitter, a highly controversial anti-abortion activist, to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench in Louisiana.

Vitter believes abortion causes cancer, and "promoted a brochure that links birth control to 'violent death,'" as Vanity Fair reports.

During her confirmation hearing Vitter refused to say if she believes the U.S. Supreme Court case that codified the concept that "separate but equal" is not equal, was decided correctly. Ironically, perhaps, the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education is Friday.
There should be no pretence that Republican politics is anything but institutionally entrenched in exploiting every aspect of the political process to serve itself before all others.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests