Roe v. Wade Overturned

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

They had no respect for where they were. They had no respect for the occasion. They had no respect for the families who were there to celebrate their kids/wives/husbands/significant other's achievements. Those families/individuals had every right to expect the spotlight to be on those they were there to celebrate. The non-politically minded students in the audience had every right to have the focus be on their accomplishments rather than someone else's political agenda.

This, coming from a Trumpkin, is outrageous. You probably don't even recognize the irony.

No doubt you also support Alex Jones' disgusting conspiracies against people whose innocent children were killed thanks to the far-Reich misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. You really need to reevaluate your life - you really suck as a human being.

[Chicks]

Graham warned to follow decorum rule after he attacks Democratic colleague

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...tic-colleague/

...speaking of obnoxious, disgusting, heartless Trumpkins...

[Noogies]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Next, fertilized eggs and zygotes will be deemed "persons". Watch for it, and the billboards advertising legal services for them.

Mirabile dictu!

Had to wait a couple of years but thanks to Alabama the time has come.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Noogies

Mirabile dictu!

Had to wait a couple of years but thanks to Alabama the time has come.

Alabama justice's ties with far-right Christian movement raise concern https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/12339...an-nationalist
Has anyone responded to this being an unconstititional application of religious test of/for law?

[Noogies]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Has anyone responded to this being an unconstititional application of religious test of/for law?

I don't see how it could be otherwise.

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by Noogies

I don't see how it could be otherwise.

It's de-centralized authority, bumped it back to States Rights vs Federal.

Ultra-conservative Kansas voted Pro-Choice, by popular vote.

I did not vote, because I'm exempt from having children (sigh).

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Alabama justice's ties with far-right Christian movement raise concern https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/12339...an-nationalist
Has anyone responded to this being an unconstititional application of religious test of/for law?

Constitution Article VI sec 3 is where religious tests are banned, but they are talking about religious tests to hold public office. What you are talking about would have to be the establishment clause, found at the beginning of the first anendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Traditionally the Supreme Court has used words like endorse, indoctrinate and fostering entanglement to describe government actions that violate the amendment. And the court has been sensitive to even indirect coercion motivated by religion. If the current court followed generations of Supreme Court precedent, there is no way the frankly religious Alabama ruling could stand. But the current court, of course, is pretty much a 'precedent be damned' court.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

It's de-centralized authority, bumped it back to States Rights vs Federal.

Ultra-conservative Kansas voted Pro-Choice, by popular vote.

I did not vote, because I'm exempt from having children (sigh).

The current court no longer finds an enforceable right to abortion in the federal constitution. But if some state judge or legislature wre to say "By authority of Almighty god, and in accordance with His law, there should be no abortion in our state. " that would be a clear violation of The Establishment Clause in the first amendment. At least it's clear according to how the Supreme Court always has interpreted the thing. The court now seems very free to change its mind. It used to be the case that no matter what you are making a law about if you frankly said it was in accordance with upholding religion, that would make it establishment of religion and the Supreme Court would throw it out. Will have to see if that's still holds.