The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Supreme Court's Abortion and Gun Rulings
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I haven’t looked into the Supreme Court’s abortion rights and gun rights rulings, but I invite your comments.

One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of federalism.

In the New York Times today, Strange, New Respect for Trump, excuse me, “former President Trump:”

 
Hide 585 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. it needs a fair amount of federalism.

    Agreed. American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy. The constitution clearly gives people the right to bear arms, and does not give people the right to an abortion.

    • Agree: Ron Mexico, Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Realistic questions:
    -- Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    -- Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother's life is threatened).

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @epebble

    , @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy


    American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy.
     
    The last time that thinking was relevant was 30 years ago.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    , @Mike Tre
    @JimDandy

    The Real World is a broad who trolls the front page Unz articles with her globohomo rhetoric.

    , @pyrrhus
    @JimDandy

    Since the Roe decision involved a non-case or controversy--Roe had already given birth--it was illegitimate from its inception, and violated the Constitution...It's reasoning was specious to put it mildly, since in every State abortion had been a crime, and creating a judicial dictatorship was a gross violation of separation of powers and States' rights...When I was in law school, even those who supported the result of Roe admitted that it was a terrible legal precedent...

  2. Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?

    • Replies: @LP5
    @Anon


    Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?
     
    Kids out of school and on vacation.
    Supremes want their summer break now.
    How is the weather in DC?
    One-two punch with the guns and roses to flood the zone and confuse the defense.
    Nat Guard couldn't muster faster and Nancy and Chuck were in the wrong branch to stop them?
    Any excuse will do.
    , @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    , @JimDandy
    @Anon

    So, if getting the already-divided populace at each others' throats even more is the goal, what would be perhaps the best way of doing that? I'm rarely wrong when I am super-confident about political predictions--because I tend to make very, very safe predictions--but I was wrong on Roe vs. Wade. I remember telling my liberal friends many times over the decades, with a condescending smile, "The Republicans aren't going to end Roe vs. Wade. And even if they did, it would just go back to the states. You could still get an abortion. But they aren't going to end Roe vs. Wade. Don't worry about that." I guess I was kind of saying it like liberals say, "No one wants to take your guns away." But I really never imagined that this could happen. It makes me slightly suspicious. Slightly.

    , @stari_momak
    @Anon

    LOL, in the real world Friday is still a weekday...or at least half a weekday.

  3. One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state’s rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state’s rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy – the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn’t say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    • Troll: JimDandy
    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jack D

    One other thing many seem to be not mentioning is how much the technology has changed. There are myriads of ways of birth control (and even abortion) from the days of Roe. Not having a federal law that was created by court and not legislature is no great tragedy even for the pro-choice side.

    Plan-B is available at the nearest Wal-Mart. RU-486 (Mifepristone) is available in most drug stores.
    https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-One-Step-Emergency-Contraceptive/635562277

    , @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    , @Patrick Gibbs
    @Jack D

    This is the most succinct and reasonable take I've read on these twin rulings so far. I wonder when the very IDEA of states' rights became so repulsive to lefties and, in fairness, neocons? There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states' rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history (blacks btfo, wypipo bad) and this. At the same time, we were busy exporting "muh freedom and democracy" to the benighted parts of the world... Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart; and nothing could be more repugnant to the Trotskyite than the idea that someone somewhere may have different values than you.

    Replies: @Curle

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Excellent comment Jack.

    That's the deal. Abortion is simply not a Constitutional issue. It's not even a federal issue. It's a left to the states and to the people issue. If there was not a 2nd amendment then it would be exactly the same. New York could do whatever they like--seize guns at the border if they wanted. And Texas could do something different--require every home owner to be armed.

    Again excellent comment, you really closed out the legal angle, right at the beginning.

    , @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.

    Says the passionate anti-Nazi. Now that's what I call CHUTZPAH!

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians.
     
    Hell, what suits downstate New Yorkers doesn't even suit upstate New Yorkers. It may suit northern Virginians, though.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Jack D

    Even the sainted Ruthie though Roe went too far:

    For the record, those calling for violence in the name of Ginsburg (i.e., “Ruth Was Here”) don’t reflect her thinking at all. She thought Roe v. Wade went too far. “Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”

    Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case. “Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” she said. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”

    Ginsburg went on to contrast the court’s landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down “a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex.” Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, “the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government…In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions,” Ginsburg noted. “The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate.”

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press
     
    No, it addresses arms ownership.
  4. It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    However it does look like the US could eventually be headed for devolution, and perhaps a split into red and blue zones, both of them one-party States.

    Both zones would be happier and able to live the way they wanted.

    When some states define abortion as murder, and others have it as legal, you’re going to have all sorts of problems over extradition, and ultimately abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States. I’m not sure where that leaves the swing States.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.
     
    Oddly, when there were fewer states, they were much more different, slavery being an obvious example. Since then, the worldwide homogenization of everything ("globalism") has caused convergence, but there were also specific efforts by the US Federal government to advance this, such as the War of Northern Aggression, the New Deal, and the ongoing Fed chicanery of withholding highway funding from states who won't conform to central diktat.

    abortion could be the new Dred Scott.
     
    You are not alone in forecasting Roe secession, but I don't see it.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States.
     
    Rather I think the arrow of causation might go the other way: a(nother) disputed election result in 2024 (or later) might result in two Presidents, one Red one Blue, with secession/civil war resulting from that schism.

    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @SaneClownPosse

    , @Hibernian
    @Jonathan Mason


    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.
     
    Isn't the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I'm aware of the difference in meaning of the term "public school" between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)

    Replies: @Adept, @Jonathan Mason

    , @Muggles
    @Jonathan Mason

    Texas is ready to go its own way again.

    Maybe let OK, LA and NM tag along too. We get to keep the military bases/nukes already based here.

    Maybe let a couple of the adjacent Rep. of Mexico states join as affiliated territories. Clean out the cartels and use the unemployed sicarros for "migrant" control.

    The (New) Republican Federation of Texas would have an ass kicking military. We'd have to uh, "borrow" most of our Navy from elsewhere. I'm sure a few Admirals would move in with fleets.

    "Woke" would soon sink under the weight of being ignored or ridiculed. Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists. Max Boot would not be admitted.

    Sounds like Plan A to me...

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @West reanimator
    @Jonathan Mason


    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.
     
    Probably because they haven't truly been states since 1865. They would more accurately be called the United Provinces at this point.
  5. Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    • Disagree: Ron Mexico, TWS, Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    I agree. This is a victory for the Democrats. The Brietbart and National Review right wingers are unbelievably stupid to be celebrating this. David Cole says it better than I can.


    https://www.takimag.com/article/drowning-dems-grab-a-pro-life-preserver/

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Russ

    , @Anonymous
    @Anon7

    I doubt abortion will make good GOTV for Dems this fall. It’s surprising to me with vivid memories of 1992’s “Year of the Woman” election but the endless child mutilation and drag queen Kulturkampfen took the wind out of pro-choice politics, not to mention the social media sclerosis of left-wing activism in general. It’s hilarious this shakes out during Ye Olde Holy Pride Month bc of the online People of Rainbow retorting to the yuppie law-school/academia women with, “Enough about you, let’s talk about me”

    , @AKAHorace
    @Anon7

    And also, even better

    https://www.takimag.com/article/aborting-trumpism/

    , @Rooster16
    @Anon7

    Uniparty…

    I thought the same as you, interesting that in a year where the Republicans would wipe the floor with Democrats, that a rallying point would be created to level the playing field. In addition to lighting a fire under their base, it’ll be used as a pretense to “win at all costs” much like 2020; it’s ok to cheat because the other side is literally Darth Vader!! You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    To your point on Trump, I’ve already seen numerous people saying this ruling is all because of him, even though he’s been pretty mute on the whole subject. The Dems will ratchet up their propaganda arm (entire MSM) and by the time the midterms roll around, their base will be foaming at the mouth over a single issue.

    It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Anon7, @Rosie

    , @Bernard
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.
     
    Bad take, this whole thing will blow over quickly. The average idiot can understand that the decision didn’t “make abortion illegal, it just allowed each state to decide. But I digress, my real point is that the economy always matters most, when it’s bad more so. If things stay the same it will be an epic wipeout. So much so that even the Republican’s will have a hard time fucking it up. It hasn’t been like this in 40 years, what happened then?
    , @JimDandy
    @Anon7

    It's so weird watching the Dem politicians' responses. I have to constantly remind myself that the tears and apoplectic rage are really expertly-disguised, nay, Oscar-worthy euphoria.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats.
     
    Nope.

    I want this election to be all about the disaster that 50 years of middle man ideology--let's have China build everything, print money to cover the difference and take our slice as the money goes by--has wrought and the parasite party making it worse for Americans with open borders.

    Trump is probably right about the politics--bad for Republicans by distracting from that.

    But by the fall, this will be old news, and people will have figured out that the Supreme Court didn't decide anything about abortion but kicked it back to the people. In fact, the idea that there is this thing called "self-government" may actually sink in and strike people as a good idea. In the end the election will be about the economic situation that "put parasitism first!" has created.

    Ongoing though this ruling does create more stress in the Republican coalition as some social conservatives will expect action on abortion. Republican state legislators are the ones who will be under some pressure.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Curle

    , @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @Anon7

    I think the electoral benefits of the Dobbs ruling are pretty minor for Democrats.

    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, "You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court."

    How likely is that? Not very.

    The very very very WHITE chicks who are protesting now wouldn't vote for a Republican even if their lives depended on it. I move in some of these circles, and believe me, passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern, particularly for boomers and genX-ers and other post first wave feminists. They think Republicans are troglodytes anyway.

    And remember the news cycle moves fast. This will pass.

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty. And if Ukraine effectively loses the war and/or surrenders by November, it will be another demoralizing blow to the deep state. It could be an electoral catastrophe of monumental proportions for Democrats.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Anon7

  6. Steve, I get your point that “federalism” entails local preferences on both abortion and gun control, but one is actually in the text of the constitution and one is not.

    That’s the very definition of a “right”: it cannot be voted on or rescinded by anyone else, even if that anyone is part of a majority out of everyone.

    All that being said, I agree with you that a good deal more federalism is going to be necessary to keep the union together. The Washington leviathan has grown too big and too powerful and it makes national politics a game of winner takes all.

  7. In France most people see USA as Gilead ….

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Bruno

    Given that France is headed towards Sharia law maybe they shouldn’t point fingers.

    , @Louis Renault
    @Bruno

    France bans abortion at the 14th week.

  8. ‘If it wants to stay together.’ Indeed.

  9. anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:

    Numerous tweets from deranged lefties LITERALLY talking about killing, murdering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, especially given Thomas’ separate opinion recommending to revisit gay marriage etc decisions as well

    Screenshots of a number of those troubling tweets, collected in the image below

    But given the ‘who’ and the ‘whom’, the feds maybe aren’t rushing out to round up lefties, regardless

    • Agree: kahein
    • Replies: @Joe S.Walker
    @anonymous

    I get the feeling that when right-wingers talk about a person needing to be killed someone might actually do it, whereas those tweeters will just move on to squeeing at the next Marvel movie having Iron Man as a black lesbian with a strap-on built into her armour or something.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Corvinus
    @anonymous

    Do you feel the same way regarding the nut jobs who wanted to murder local election officials who had investigated voter fraud claims and found no evidence in the 2020 election because they felt Trump won?

    , @AndrewR
    @anonymous

    SCOTUS has had a lot of rulings over the years that have made many people feel homicidal. I wouldn't bet on this one kicking off a civil war, but admittedly I can't recall this much anger at the Supreme Court in my lifetime.

  10. The Supreme Court has decided that guns don’t kill people, abortions do. I’m fine with that.

  11. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    One other thing many seem to be not mentioning is how much the technology has changed. There are myriads of ways of birth control (and even abortion) from the days of Roe. Not having a federal law that was created by court and not legislature is no great tragedy even for the pro-choice side.

    Plan-B is available at the nearest Wal-Mart. RU-486 (Mifepristone) is available in most drug stores.
    https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-One-Step-Emergency-Contraceptive/635562277

  12. As a reminder, anytime a politician says that a gun rights ruling or law will increase inner city violence, that politician is saying blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Batman

    They say the same thing regarding limits on abortion. Biden “himself” publicly stated in a press release that “abortion control” hurts poor people of color the most.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Batman

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Batman, @Prester John, @John Johnson, @Joe Stalin

  13. Conservatives are generally law abiding. So there was not a lot of violence over the past half century while the morality of the country was completely changed.

    On the other hand, Progressives have shown no hesitancy to resort to violence, and the Ruling Class has demonstrated it will arbitrarily exercise prosecutorial authority to protect Progressives and punish conservatives.

    Seems to me it is just a matter of time before we see acts of terrorist violence by Progressives in states where abortion is outlawed. These crimes will be justified and glorified by the media. And judges and legal authorities in blue states will refuse to enforce extradition against suspects.

    Add that to a recession with high inflation, and we are looking at a volatile next few years in the US, I fear.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    They're revolutionaries. Revolution means violence.

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Conservatives are generally law abiding

    I grew up in a rural Red state - this comment doesn’t apply. It was generally the Democrats who were sticklers about laws and fair play. Republicans tended to be more corrupt, less community minded and more violent (and just fairly stupid in general). Maybe in New Jersey it’s different.

    Replies: @Ron Mexico, @Mike Tre, @JimDandy

  14. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.

    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Twinkie

    Agree.

    I personally don't care what goes on California because I live in Texas... and I'm not interested in forcing my way of life on Californians. I think many of my fellow Texans agree with that sentiment.

    But a very large segment of the population of California cares very much what goes on in Texas and very much wants to export their values to other places and regulate what I do here.

    That is the fatal flaw of federalism: it has to be respected in both directions.

    , @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    He’s doing some kind of lefty rhetorical homage, I think. Surely there are right-wing pro-choicers who believe it to be eugenic but if we’re honest about the “female” part of “Black female” we can’t believe preserving their efficient access to Planned-Parenthood-spare-parts abortive services makes life appreciably easier for the other races who have to deal with them (this is before getting into any moral preening over what it does to their own race). Lack of candor about who does what how much creates a lot of stultified pseudo-debate nowadays.

    , @Curle
    @Twinkie

    “The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights.”

    Justices Story and Marshall set the table. Lincoln stuck in the knife.

    There’s absolutely no way to conform the 9th and 10th amendments with the government Lincoln invaded the southern states to create. A government whose purpose was to concentrate power at the federal level and facilitate control of the states by national corporate oligarchs starting with the railroad barons.

    That’s why they were eviscerated.

    , @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    At common law, abortion was not "baby killing" until the "quickening" when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks. Most countries allow abortion up until around 12 weeks. I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother. Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law, which allows abortion up until 15 weeks because this gives responsible women plenty of time to know that they are pregnant and get an abortion.

    However, this doesn't account for IRRESPONSIBLE women. Women who are junkies and who are so befuddled that they can't get their shit together to have an abortion before week 15 or 20. While in the abstract human life should be valued, no good things are waiting for these fetuses. At best they are going to be burdens to society. At worst they are going to be life takers. So the reality is that these are exactly the abortions that should be allowed, at least up to the Roe limit of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb so it is fair to call it a baby and morally right to prohibit baby killing. But before that, the fetus is not quite a baby - it is more than nothing but less than a full human being.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don't agree with. A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby. But reasonable people can differ on this - this is why we have (50 state) legislatures, to do precisely this kind of line drawing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Twinkie, @Mike Tre

    , @International Jew
    @Twinkie


    until you wrote the above monstrosity
     
    Yes, JackD's heart is impure.

    But to dive even deeper into that quagmire: what would the progressive response be if someone proposed that the right to an abortion be preserved just for Blacks? To make up for past injustices etc...

    Replies: @Nico

    , @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    “ Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.”

    Fetuses smaller than a strawberry aren’t babies.

    “Baby killing” talk is weird fundie-feminine hysterics.

    What percentage of the population would jail a woman for life for taking an abortion pill at 8 weeks? 10% maybe?

    Justice Amy says: Black Babies are Most Precious, I Only wish I Could Adopt More!

    https://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Amy-Coney-Barrett-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    This is a hell of a topic, old friend.


    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity.
     
    I am still with him.

    Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.
     
    You and I are simply not going to agree on this. I very strongly, urgently believe that the principle of subsidiarity governs here. When it comes to abortion, it is of utmost relevance that, so long as abortion is not practiced among your kin nor mine but only among strangers, neither the killer nor the killed has anything to do with you or me.

    The state incarcerates murderers mainly because, if left free, murderers are a threat to you and yours, to me and mine. The states does not incarcerate aborters because, if left free, aborters are no threat to you and yours, to me and mine.

    Starting about sixteen years from now, numerous innocent nonblacks who would otherwise have lived are certain to lose their lives to black violence as a result of today's imminent abortion restriction. I grasp that Catholic teaching distinguishes intrinsic evils from contingent evils but the distinction is too theoretical in this instance. Innocent nonblacks are going to die, maybe including your grandchild or mine.

    That's not okay with me.

    I am sorry, but @Jack D had it right.

    Replies: @TWS, @Twinkie

    , @AndrewR
    @Twinkie

    Feminists always always always frame their argument around the alleged rights of the mother, as opposed to the well-being of the baby or of society.

    But I support abortion because

    1. Unless she's coerced (rare), if a woman wants to have an abortion then either the baby has serious genetic/medical problems, and/or there is a serious threat to the mother's health, and/or she would make a terrible mother. There are no exceptions to my statement.

    2. Perhaps more importantly, banning abortion would make the black population balloon. And this is before we account for white overpopulation (yes, Virginia, every race is overpopulated).

    I think right wingers in large part support limiting abortion in order to own the feminists. While this is understandable if not laudable, we do need to reframe the debate entirely.

  15. There is no way these issues can be resolved rationally, because they depend on world-views & are actually non-negotiable.

    Abortion is one of the 4 “big killings” where there can be no agreement on the topic:

    abortion
    suicide
    death penalty/capital punishment
    euthanasia

    Religious people tend to be against all four (except death penalty among Christian Evangelicals), while secular people are, generally, for all four, most of them strongly opposed to death penalty.

    So, basically- it is a clash of world-views.

    • Replies: @aNewBanner
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Isn’t this the heart of the matter. John Paul II called one the culture of life and the other the culture of death. Twenty years ago, that seemed needlessly provocative. Now, it seems about accurate.

    There are many things where it is impossible to split the difference. When I was younger, I used to think that one could just be tolerant and live-and-let-live. It turns out that I didn’t believe in my own ideas, didn’t follow arguments through to the end, and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity. I now understand that I was wrong, quite wrong. (See drag queen story hour.)

    Roe introduced a terrible moral question into the country on par with slavery. I don’t know if the wound can be healed without another terrible conflict.

    Also, I don’t trust the NYT for one moment to quote Trump fairly or accurately.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  16. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in

    I agree. This is a victory for the Democrats. The Brietbart and National Review right wingers are unbelievably stupid to be celebrating this. David Cole says it better than I can.

    https://www.takimag.com/article/drowning-dems-grab-a-pro-life-preserver/

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Almost Missouri, @ginger bread man, @AKAHorace, @Art Deco

    , @Russ
    @AKAHorace


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    A day before the abortion decision, we had "conservative" stalwarts such as John Cornyn and Lyndsey Graham and a dozen or so other Mitch McConnell pubic lice in the Senate undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine. Install McConnell as Majority Leader in November? No, and neither Cole Steyn nor abortion had one damned thing to do with it.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

  17. Any time I see this many progressives this upset it gladdens me!

  18. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    Agree.

    I personally don’t care what goes on California because I live in Texas… and I’m not interested in forcing my way of life on Californians. I think many of my fellow Texans agree with that sentiment.

    But a very large segment of the population of California cares very much what goes on in Texas and very much wants to export their values to other places and regulate what I do here.

    That is the fatal flaw of federalism: it has to be respected in both directions.

  19. Anonymous[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    I doubt abortion will make good GOTV for Dems this fall. It’s surprising to me with vivid memories of 1992’s “Year of the Woman” election but the endless child mutilation and drag queen Kulturkampfen took the wind out of pro-choice politics, not to mention the social media sclerosis of left-wing activism in general. It’s hilarious this shakes out during Ye Olde Holy Pride Month bc of the online People of Rainbow retorting to the yuppie law-school/academia women with, “Enough about you, let’s talk about me”

  20. Awaiting your commentary about how many of the elite players being drafted in the NBA are mixed-race (Black father/mother who’s not)…

    • Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @The Only Catholic Unionist

    Today in the US about 12% of African-American children have a white mother....

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  21. @Anon
    Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?

    Replies: @LP5, @Ebony Obelisk, @JimDandy, @stari_momak

    Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?

    Kids out of school and on vacation.
    Supremes want their summer break now.
    How is the weather in DC?
    One-two punch with the guns and roses to flood the zone and confuse the defense.
    Nat Guard couldn’t muster faster and Nancy and Chuck were in the wrong branch to stop them?
    Any excuse will do.

  22. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    This is the most succinct and reasonable take I’ve read on these twin rulings so far. I wonder when the very IDEA of states’ rights became so repulsive to lefties and, in fairness, neocons? There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states’ rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history (blacks btfo, wypipo bad) and this. At the same time, we were busy exporting “muh freedom and democracy” to the benighted parts of the world… Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart; and nothing could be more repugnant to the Trotskyite than the idea that someone somewhere may have different values than you.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Patrick Gibbs

    “There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states’ rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history “

    Yes, there was such an campaign and that was its purpose.”

    “Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart”

    They are both full on Bolsheviks. Remember, Bolsheviks were accommodating to monopoly capitalists. It was the middle people, the bourgeoisie, they wanted to disable through divide and conquer conflict with the working class.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton (1974) is well worth reading.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  23. What’s interesting is the majority invoking the rationale of racial bias, which is an argument many black conservatives have been making for many years now (including Clarence Thomas). Generally, they bring up the historical legacy of eugenics and Margaret Sanger’s work with Planned Parenthood, and try to tie that to modern-day inequalities, basically exploiting the liberal good intentions on diversity and disparities in impact against itself.

    From p. 38 of the PDF: “Other amicus briefs present arguments about the motives of proponents of liberal access to abortion. They note that some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African-American population. (. . .) And it is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are Black.”

    This reminds me of an essay I recently read which examined disparate impact in the context of medicine (note that I’m not saying I fully agree with this perspective): https://geraldrogue.substack.com/p/medicalization-and-colonization?s=r

    (ctrl-F to the section starting “This process of medicalization, and its implementation here in the form of disproportionate racial culling, is naturally intrinsically related to the eugenics movement.”)

    (and it’s a long essay, summary here: https://geraldrogue.substack.com/p/medicalization-and-colonization/comment/6544999)

    While I can’t say I agree with the attempted link to eugenics and other horrible practices, it does make me recognize that abortion in and of itself is only one aspect of a broader system. And that many liberal groups do only seek symbolic victories rather than material ones. e.g. Without welfare reform, what are women’s incentives related to abortion vs. giving birth? Without sufficient job opportunities for their parents, will babies that are being born have a fair chance in life, given the significant economic disparities between racial groups?

    Resolving these issues one way or another involves legal rights, of course. But it also involves a broader social tapestry which too many (on all sides) have left lying fallow.

  24. So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed – BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don’t change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant – again in 1787 – another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning – in 1787 – something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn’t have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don’t get me started on the US voting system.)

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @michael droy

    There's a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mr. Anon, @Dream

    , @Almost Missouri
    @michael droy


    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things.
     
    They could, but they don't.

    If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don’t change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. ... Its an obvious sham.
     
    Yes, unfortunately, this twisted and illegitimate route has become the main path of de facto federal legislation. But today's ruling goes some way to foreclosing the federal kritarchy, so perhaps a new dawn beckons.

    This "legislating from the bench" thing was primarily started by the liberal-eulogized Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s. The Left thought they had a lock on this. Now that the law is being painfully returned to its proper parameters, they're having a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, all they have to do is steal a couple more elections and appoint a couple more left-activist judges and all of this unaccustomed constitutionality will be reversed faster than a Trump-era Executive Order.

    Don’t get me started on the US voting system.
     
    Don't get any of us started either. Steve doesn't like it.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @michael droy


    Don’t get me started on the US voting system.
     
    Our Electoral College chooses a chief executive the same way Parliament does. Then dissolves. What's not to like?

    So in Britain we have no constitution at all...

     

    Yes, you do. Just not in one place. Again, like our Electoral College.
    , @Gordo
    @michael droy


    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed – BY Parliament.
     
    No.

    The British people have a consistent majority decade after decade in favour of the death penalty, the globalist in parliament don’t and won’t, they live in their metropolitan bubble.

    Oh and the current invasion of an army of young violent black and brown men?
    , @sb
    @michael droy

    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn't have a Constitution.
    What it doesn't have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.
    There are a number of very significant pieces of legislation starting with Magna Carta (1215) which are said by legal scholars to be constitutional in character
    This is just a result of having unbroken legal continuity since 1066.

    Gee I sound nerdish

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Kylie
    @michael droy

    "So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws."

    How nice for you.

    "(Don’t get me started on the US voting system.)"

    Don't worry, we won't. We're just sorry you got yourself started on the superiority of your Parliamentary system.

    Though I must say you have some justification for your obvious feeling of superiority. You Brits managed to dump the dim ginger on us, you know, the royal pain who, as an uninvited and unwelcome guest, felt entitled to declare our First Amendment "bonkers".

  25. Anonymous[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    He’s doing some kind of lefty rhetorical homage, I think. Surely there are right-wing pro-choicers who believe it to be eugenic but if we’re honest about the “female” part of “Black female” we can’t believe preserving their efficient access to Planned-Parenthood-spare-parts abortive services makes life appreciably easier for the other races who have to deal with them (this is before getting into any moral preening over what it does to their own race). Lack of candor about who does what how much creates a lot of stultified pseudo-debate nowadays.

  26. The babykillers are reeing, but the fight must continue. Not until abortion is banned and severely prosecuted in all 50 states can we really say babykilling is knocked out.

    In a side note, Merrick Garland still refuses to enforce the law and arrest those people threatening and protesting outside Supreme Court Justices houses for stopping babykilling.

    Which also leads to this second side note: as Garland has abandoned his duty to protect them, its terribly unlikely the Supreme Court will rule against any laws that restrict their ability to defend themselves. Meaning gun laws are likely to topple with greater alacrity at their feet. The Left’s man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct—because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren’t going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    In other words, and ironically given his failed status as a failed Supreme Court nominee, Garland likely just radicalized the Supreme Court on gun rights, but in the opposite way Garland and his supporters hoped.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @R.G. Camara


    ...how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.
     
    You make many good points.

    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

    Maybe it's better not to think about this, period?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    , @Dr. X
    @R.G. Camara


    The Left’s man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct—because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren’t going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.
     
    Yep.

    In his autobiography My Grandfather's Son, Thomas recounts how as a poor black child in the swamps of Georgia his grandfather had a .22 rifle he used to shoot deer in the head so the family could eat.

    Although he didn't say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose. The rifle was probably highly prized for home defense, and likely his only means of defense -- the probability that his black grandfather would have been issued a carry permit for a pistol in segregated Georgia was probably zero.

    I think it's a safe bet that Ol' Clarence goes to bed every night with a piece under his pillow. A lot of Southern blacks do, because they don't live in a bubble and are intimately familiar with many of life's harsher realities.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin

    , @Hibernian
    @R.G. Camara

    The last thing we need is SCOTUS justices defending their homes with .22s. Let them move to West Virginia and be protected by the local sheriff. There's a commuter train to DC from Harper's Ferry.

  27. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Conservatives are generally law abiding. So there was not a lot of violence over the past half century while the morality of the country was completely changed.

    On the other hand, Progressives have shown no hesitancy to resort to violence, and the Ruling Class has demonstrated it will arbitrarily exercise prosecutorial authority to protect Progressives and punish conservatives.

    Seems to me it is just a matter of time before we see acts of terrorist violence by Progressives in states where abortion is outlawed. These crimes will be justified and glorified by the media. And judges and legal authorities in blue states will refuse to enforce extradition against suspects.

    Add that to a recession with high inflation, and we are looking at a volatile next few years in the US, I fear.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Peter Akuleyev

    They’re revolutionaries. Revolution means violence.

  28. If the US was willing to settle on European restrictions they could probably pass a law at the Federal level. Ironically the Mississippi law leading to the latest ruling is more liberal for abortions then most of Europe.

    Here in the US it has to be full term abortions or nothing.

    Maybe our ruling class isn’t the worst but it’s not for lack of trying.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @mc23


    Here in the US it has to be full term abortions or nothing.
     
    Roe v Wade enacted a blanket legalization of abortions during the first trimester, with restrictions possible in the next two trimesters (all that despite the Constitution not once mentioning the word "abortion" or "trimester"). However that wasn't good enough for abortion supporters. They kept pushing back the allowable term to include up to and even after birth.

    Opponents of gun control have paid attention. When liberals say "this far and no further" what they really mean is "this far and no further today, but tomorrow we'll take everything we can". They've pursued this tack on every issue - abortion, the homosexual agenda, and - it is to be assumed - on gun control. That's why so many 2nd amendment supporters are absolutists. Slippery slopes are real and they are slippery.
    , @kahein
    @mc23

    this is so fucking stupid. medical support for abortion there is universally and easily accessible and free. it's a routine medical procedure and treated as such. not like here where all pro-christian-deathcult state have already installed a gauntlet of legal and logistical obstacles

    do you all of you just fucking lie like you breathe

    Replies: @J.Ross

  29. anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:

    Just for the record, I think abortion should be legal before the point of fetal viability, but I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to an abortion.
    There wasn’t a constitutional right to abortion in 1972 or 1939 or 1897 or 1915 and there wasn’t one suddenly in 1973. This arrogant decision overturning the duly enacted laws in 45 (!) states, was created out of whole cloth by seven power-hungry men who were looking to codify an elite consensus on an issue they damn-well knew the citizenry felt overwhelmingly different about at the time. That the public, regardless of how you may personally feel on this matter, let such a farce stand for almost 50 years is a disgrace.

    As for the claim that abortion really has been a blessing in disguise given the demographics of those who usually terminate pregnancies (poor, minority) and that this has had the effect keeping America’s feral underclass from exploding in size, these analyses don’t take into account how mandatory birth control for all welfare recipients could have been just as effective (or more) in this regard.
    Under a Court that is strictly reading the US Constitution states should now have the ability to require hormonal contraceptives (which are nearly foolproof, btw) or tubal ligations for all unwed women on welfare. Such a measure would likely act as a very effective counter-balance, demographically speaking, in the states where abortions are now barred. The only question is whether the people in those states have the brains and the balls to implement such a measure.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous

    Agree, except for this sentence:


    That the public, regardless of how you may personally feel on this matter, let such a farce stand for almost 50 years is a disgrace.
     
    The trouble with the Supremes' habit of reading new law into the Constitution is that the new law becomes by definition constitutional, i.e., the legislature cannot pass a statute to overrule the new (but fake) constitutional law. Presumably that's why they do it: it really does make them an un-overruleable super-legislature.

    It took 49 years of relentless political combat, but the people took the high road, got actual Constitutionalists back onto the Court, and today those Constitutionalists repealed the half-century-ago judicial coup d'etat.

    , @Thoughts
    @anonymous

    You don't get to tell other people what to do with their bodies regardless of class or income...possibly criminality (not letting serial killers breed in jail f.ex)...but nothing else

    Just wipe that thought out of your mind because it is very very very evil

    Replies: @anonymous

  30. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    “The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights.”

    Justices Story and Marshall set the table. Lincoln stuck in the knife.

    There’s absolutely no way to conform the 9th and 10th amendments with the government Lincoln invaded the southern states to create. A government whose purpose was to concentrate power at the federal level and facilitate control of the states by national corporate oligarchs starting with the railroad barons.

    That’s why they were eviscerated.

  31. The consistency between these two decisions is that in both the SCOTUS moved to protect the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. This is its most critical function, and it has done that magnificently this week.

    In the NY state concealed carry ruling, the state had clearly passed legislation that infringed on the Second Amendment. That intended infringement automatically makes it repugnant to the Constitution.

    Others have pointed it out more eloquently, but the Constitution has nothing to say on the topic of abortion. An activist Court conjuring alleged Constitutional rights from thin air is also repugnant to the Constitution because the express purpose of the original document was to specify the limited powers granted to the federal government.

    Again, the SCOTUS has done its job and done it quite well this week.

    Some have pointed out that it would be better if the Feds were not involved in these at all. My feeling is that the US no longer has a majority population that is thoughtful and morally straight enough to have avoided getting into this mess in the first place.

  32. The gun case creates a strong presumption that carrying a handgun in public for “self-protection” is legal. But it is also very interesting in how it sets the legal standard for any exceptions to this general rule. Henceforth, the constitutionality of any current gun regulation will depend on what people could get away with between 1620 and about 1900.

    We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

    ***

    For instance, when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier generations addressed the societal problem, but did so through materially different means, that also could be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional.

    ***

    Much like we use history to determine which modern “arms” are protected by the Second Amendment, so too does history guide our consideration of modern regulations that were unimaginable at the founding. When confronting such present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like any analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation requires a determination of whether the two regulations are “relevantly similar.”

    ***

    To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Drummond v. Robinson, 9 F. 4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021). On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.

    This hyper-reliance on “historical tradition” as the relevant Constitutional standard is pretty unusual. Especially as the historical analysis spans all 50 states and enumerable localities over hundreds of years. Now if you get arrested for unlawful possession of a grenade launcher, nerve gas, and a samurai sword, you will need to call an historian instead of a lawyer, and figure out whether the Pilgrims had rules that should apply by historical analogy to your tactical gear. That should be interesting.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Hypnotoad666

    “This hyper-reliance on “historical tradition” as the relevant Constitutional standard is pretty unusual.”

    No it isn’t. It is the very nature of precedent which is, in turn, the very essence of law and has been since at least Roman times.

    Replies: @Random Anonymous

  33. @AKAHorace
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    I agree. This is a victory for the Democrats. The Brietbart and National Review right wingers are unbelievably stupid to be celebrating this. David Cole says it better than I can.


    https://www.takimag.com/article/drowning-dems-grab-a-pro-life-preserver/

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Russ

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    • Agree: TWS, Barnard
    • Disagree: ginger bread man
    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    @Dutch Boy

    Elections are made and broken by margins of 1-2%. In the 2 most recent presidential elections, the victories were clenched (first by trump, then by Biden) by margins of ~0.1%. I can see many dem and ind registered women who may have flirted with voting rep in 2022 (due to inflation, Wokeness, Biden’s dementia or the million and one other problems) will have a really hard time doing so now that abortion is “threatened”.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    I don't know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn't going to change anyone's vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    Will the ruling make one side turn out in greater numbers than would have otherwise? Hard to see how since every election is now "the most important election in history" for a scrolling list of reasons. But more so because the blue margin of victory is now synthetically manufactured, so turnout is moot.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dutch Boy, @Mr. Anon

    , @ginger bread man
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.
     
    Where can I read more about this abortion being a Jewish sacrament? I would like to know more about why this is.

    See this relevant clip:
    https://youtu.be/g7NIvS4IBdc

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dutch Boy

    , @AKAHorace
    @Dutch Boy


    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.
     
    That is a pretty foolish argument. If you want to get ethnically abusive, what about the Dutch ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

    States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    US elections are not won on hard Blue or Red states so much as by swing voters in purple states. A lot of the US right are extreme on unimportant unpopular matters so that they loose ground on the important questions.

    https://www.takimag.com/article/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-a-maga/

    https://www.takimag.com/article/aborting-trumpism/

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

    , @Art Deco
    @Dutch Boy

    Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.

    There were three attorneys who brought Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton to court, assisted by the lawyer-husband of one of them. None were Jewish. Neither of the straw plaintiffs they exploited were Jewish. There were no Jews on the Supreme Court at the time.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Curle, @Steve Sailer

  34. Anon[271] • Disclaimer says:

    If the left can get a couple of Supreme Court Justices assassinated, then they can get Biden a couple of chances to replace them and obtain the OSHA rulings they want (mandate vaccines), and the paper ballots they want, even with no pandemics (ensure cheating forever).

    The protests over Roe can be used for cover for other covert targeted actions also.

  35. Anonymous[954] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m a little confused. So does this mean abortion will be totally outlawed in some states, or does it just mean taxpayers no longer have to pay for it, or can a state choose one and not the other?

    Btw, I believe abortion actually is killing a baby, and I’m all for it. Imagine this world if every poor dummy had to carry it’s wretched spawn to term. I’d prefer we not kill babies, because it’s evil, but it’s a matter of being forced to choose the lesser evil.

    Imagine the time when we can test to see if a baby is going to be gay or a tranny. Then mothers can abort that baby, rescuing it from growing up to live an unhappy, futile life. Abortion is a good thing now, and I can’t wait for Abortion 2.0!

  36. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

  37. @Patrick Gibbs
    @Jack D

    This is the most succinct and reasonable take I've read on these twin rulings so far. I wonder when the very IDEA of states' rights became so repulsive to lefties and, in fairness, neocons? There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states' rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history (blacks btfo, wypipo bad) and this. At the same time, we were busy exporting "muh freedom and democracy" to the benighted parts of the world... Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart; and nothing could be more repugnant to the Trotskyite than the idea that someone somewhere may have different values than you.

    Replies: @Curle

    “There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states’ rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history “

    Yes, there was such an campaign and that was its purpose.”

    “Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart”

    They are both full on Bolsheviks. Remember, Bolsheviks were accommodating to monopoly capitalists. It was the middle people, the bourgeoisie, they wanted to disable through divide and conquer conflict with the working class.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton (1974) is well worth reading.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Curle

    Curle wrote:


    [Patrick Gibbs]“Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart”

    [Carle] They are both full on Bolsheviks. Remember, Bolsheviks were accommodating to monopoly capitalists. It was the middle people, the bourgeoisie, they wanted to disable through divide and conquer conflict with the working class.
     
    They just cannot bring themselves simply to leave other people alone.

    I am a bright, highly-educated person. I have some pretty definite ideas as to how other people should live their lives, and, alas, they do not always live their lives as I think they should.

    But, somehow, I lack the urge to control other people's lives. I have this nagging suspicion that, just maybe, they know more about their own lives than I do.

    There is a deep sickness in the soul of people who cannot resist trying to control their fellow human beings.
  38. @Hypnotoad666
    The gun case creates a strong presumption that carrying a handgun in public for "self-protection" is legal. But it is also very interesting in how it sets the legal standard for any exceptions to this general rule. Henceforth, the constitutionality of any current gun regulation will depend on what people could get away with between 1620 and about 1900.

    We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
     
    ***

    For instance, when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier generations addressed the societal problem, but did so through materially different means, that also could be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional.

     

    ***

    Much like we use history to determine which modern “arms” are protected by the Second Amendment, so too does history guide our consideration of modern regulations that were unimaginable at the founding. When confronting such present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like any analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation requires a determination of whether the two regulations are “relevantly similar.”
     
    ***

    To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Drummond v. Robinson, 9 F. 4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021). On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.
     
    This hyper-reliance on "historical tradition" as the relevant Constitutional standard is pretty unusual. Especially as the historical analysis spans all 50 states and enumerable localities over hundreds of years. Now if you get arrested for unlawful possession of a grenade launcher, nerve gas, and a samurai sword, you will need to call an historian instead of a lawyer, and figure out whether the Pilgrims had rules that should apply by historical analogy to your tactical gear. That should be interesting.

    Replies: @Curle

    “This hyper-reliance on “historical tradition” as the relevant Constitutional standard is pretty unusual.”

    No it isn’t. It is the very nature of precedent which is, in turn, the very essence of law and has been since at least Roman times.

    • Replies: @Random Anonymous
    @Curle

    Agree.

  39. @Jonathan Mason
    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    However it does look like the US could eventually be headed for devolution, and perhaps a split into red and blue zones, both of them one-party States.

    Both zones would be happier and able to live the way they wanted.

    When some states define abortion as murder, and others have it as legal, you're going to have all sorts of problems over extradition, and ultimately abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States. I'm not sure where that leaves the swing States.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hibernian, @Muggles, @West reanimator

    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    Oddly, when there were fewer states, they were much more different, slavery being an obvious example. Since then, the worldwide homogenization of everything (“globalism”) has caused convergence, but there were also specific efforts by the US Federal government to advance this, such as the War of Northern Aggression, the New Deal, and the ongoing Fed chicanery of withholding highway funding from states who won’t conform to central diktat.

    abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    You are not alone in forecasting Roe secession, but I don’t see it.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States.

    Rather I think the arrow of causation might go the other way: a(nother) disputed election result in 2024 (or later) might result in two Presidents, one Red one Blue, with secession/civil war resulting from that schism.

    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Almost Missouri


    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.
     
    You and Audacious Epigone. Miss that blog.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Almost Missouri

    , @SaneClownPosse
    @Almost Missouri

    There were slaves above the Mason-Dixon Line until after the War of Northern Aggression ended.

    Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Nothing at all to do with Juneteenth, which could be said to be a racist construct.) only freed slaves in the States doing business as the Confederate States of America.

    The freeing of the slaves was an act intended to destabilize the South, as an economic weapon of mass destruction. Lincoln wasn't thinking at all about the well being of Porgy and Bess.

    The Confederacy was a return to the original Articles of Confederation, which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in. Where Basic Rights were an after thought as Amendments to the Constitution.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Curle

  40. @Anon
    Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?

    Replies: @LP5, @Ebony Obelisk, @JimDandy, @stari_momak

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn

    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FklUAoZ6KxY&t=88s

    , @MEH 0910
    @Ebony Obelisk


    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn

    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda
     
    https://cdn.drawception.com/drawings/2bJHptSKp1.png
    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Ebony Obelisk

    London calling Ebony Obelisk: "John has a long mustache. Repeat, John has a long mustache.”

    , @Che Blutarsky
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebt to Ebony Obelisk for clearly stating what needed to be said. Not only was it authentic urban gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    , @Twinkie
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Someone should check to make sure he’s not having a stroke.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @tyrone
    @Ebony Obelisk


    There will be no riots
     
    ......and then the duck got an ebony obelisk up the cloaca.
    , @Cloudbuster
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Clearly the language database used by the Ebony Obelisk/Tiny Duck bot has become corrupted.

    Yet it still has better posting privileges on iSteve than I do.

  41. It is apropos at this point in the culture wars to post the video by the great political philosopher Taylor Swift in response to the rioters threatening to lynch Supreme Court Justices.

    I don’t think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin’ hot. And her message is on point. You (lefty fascists) need to calm down.

    • Replies: @Joe S.Walker
    @Wade Hampton

    She's a lesbian, and one who seems to really enjoy bitching about the relationships she's had with men.

    Replies: @ginger bread man

    , @JimB
    @Wade Hampton


    I don’t think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin’ hot.
     
    The average PTA mother in the 1960s was younger than Taylor Swift
    , @Amwolf
    @Wade Hampton

    She's a complete degenerate regardless of how "smokin’ hot" she is. Her message in this music video is extremely modernistic and a cancer that fuels culture rot.

    A little bit more cheerful, Romanian style...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbHjsQC2zA

  42. Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?

    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
    @Anon

    Imagine yourself your current age and then wind it back to before you were born. Just a minute before you were born. Imagine how it would feel to have your spine severed in utero. Think about that for a minute.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anon


    Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?
     
    I could paint a picture of a different sort of sane, cohesive, family-children-future oriented society that actually would be quite beneficial to all the people in it. (Unfortunately, that's not the society we have.)

    But the main point here is that the Supreme Court isn't banning abortion or stipulating anything about abortion one way or another. It's simply--applying the Constitution--and kicking the issue back to the people of every state to decide it however they wish.

    Republican, constitutional government actually is beneficial to you, compared to elite diktat.

    Replies: @Anon

  43. @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    There’s a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Redneck farmer

    Indeed.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Redneck farmer


    @michael droy

    There’s a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.
     

    Aye. And - to Mr. Droy - take your rotten royal family with you.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Dream
    @Redneck farmer

    American conservatives are funny.

  44. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Uniparty…

    I thought the same as you, interesting that in a year where the Republicans would wipe the floor with Democrats, that a rallying point would be created to level the playing field. In addition to lighting a fire under their base, it’ll be used as a pretense to “win at all costs” much like 2020; it’s ok to cheat because the other side is literally Darth Vader!! You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    To your point on Trump, I’ve already seen numerous people saying this ruling is all because of him, even though he’s been pretty mute on the whole subject. The Dems will ratchet up their propaganda arm (entire MSM) and by the time the midterms roll around, their base will be foaming at the mouth over a single issue.

    It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    @Rooster16

    Rally point, win at all costs, foaming at the mouth, hating Clarence Thomas... Meh. This is nothing new. Remember what they said about G.W. Bush, McCain, Romney? If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf. It’s true that there is an element of the population that does continue to outdo itself, but this doesn’t seem to be persuading people who are persuadable.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Gordo

    , @Anon7
    @Rooster16

    “ It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.”

    Ever heard of “kayfabe”? It’s the unwritten code of wrestling: every single person involved knows that it’s fake, and every single person involved swears that wrestling is real, unscripted fighting. Even so-called reveals … are part of the kayfabe!

    , @Rosie
    @Rooster16


    You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???
     
    WTF do you mean they have "no chance" of being overturned?

    They have effectively already been overturned. If the only rights we have are the ones that are spelled out in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional right to either same-sex marriage or contraception.

    Of course, contraception isn't going to be banned because it's not controversial like abortion is, and gay marriage is probably safe because of the media, but countercultural Christians who homeschool their kids are going to be in the cross hairs. We don't have the media access and clout to protect ourselves.

    Replies: @Redman

  45. @anonymous
    Numerous tweets from deranged lefties LITERALLY talking about killing, murdering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, especially given Thomas' separate opinion recommending to revisit gay marriage etc decisions as well

    Screenshots of a number of those troubling tweets, collected in the image below

    But given the 'who' and the 'whom', the feds maybe aren't rushing out to round up lefties, regardless

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1656108628206.jpg

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @Corvinus, @AndrewR

    I get the feeling that when right-wingers talk about a person needing to be killed someone might actually do it, whereas those tweeters will just move on to squeeing at the next Marvel movie having Iron Man as a black lesbian with a strap-on built into her armour or something.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Joe S.Walker

    It seems like those antifa types have no problem working themselves into a violent frenzy, despite being short and scrawny.

    Replies: @TWS

  46. @R.G. Camara
    The babykillers are reeing, but the fight must continue. Not until abortion is banned and severely prosecuted in all 50 states can we really say babykilling is knocked out.

    In a side note, Merrick Garland still refuses to enforce the law and arrest those people threatening and protesting outside Supreme Court Justices houses for stopping babykilling.

    Which also leads to this second side note: as Garland has abandoned his duty to protect them, its terribly unlikely the Supreme Court will rule against any laws that restrict their ability to defend themselves. Meaning gun laws are likely to topple with greater alacrity at their feet. The Left's man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct---because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren't going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    In other words, and ironically given his failed status as a failed Supreme Court nominee, Garland likely just radicalized the Supreme Court on gun rights, but in the opposite way Garland and his supporters hoped.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Dr. X, @Hibernian

    …how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    You make many good points.

    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

    Maybe it’s better not to think about this, period?

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @The Wild Geese Howard


    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

     

    This post glows.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Reg Cæsar

  47. @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.
     
    Oddly, when there were fewer states, they were much more different, slavery being an obvious example. Since then, the worldwide homogenization of everything ("globalism") has caused convergence, but there were also specific efforts by the US Federal government to advance this, such as the War of Northern Aggression, the New Deal, and the ongoing Fed chicanery of withholding highway funding from states who won't conform to central diktat.

    abortion could be the new Dred Scott.
     
    You are not alone in forecasting Roe secession, but I don't see it.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States.
     
    Rather I think the arrow of causation might go the other way: a(nother) disputed election result in 2024 (or later) might result in two Presidents, one Red one Blue, with secession/civil war resulting from that schism.

    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @SaneClownPosse

    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.

    You and Audacious Epigone. Miss that blog.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Twinkie

    What holds the US together is force, affluence that is fading and the welfare state. A currency collapse means the financial glue comes to and end and then different peoples and regions go their separate ways.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Twinkie

    And yeah, I miss that blog too.

    If AE reads this, maybe he would at least consider getting a commenter handle and weighing in on some of the more quantitative iSteve threads once in a while?

  48. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    Excellent comment Jack.

    That’s the deal. Abortion is simply not a Constitutional issue. It’s not even a federal issue. It’s a left to the states and to the people issue. If there was not a 2nd amendment then it would be exactly the same. New York could do whatever they like–seize guns at the border if they wanted. And Texas could do something different–require every home owner to be armed.

    Again excellent comment, you really closed out the legal angle, right at the beginning.

  49. @Wade Hampton
    It is apropos at this point in the culture wars to post the video by the great political philosopher Taylor Swift in response to the rioters threatening to lynch Supreme Court Justices.

    I don't think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin' hot. And her message is on point. You (lefty fascists) need to calm down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @JimB, @Amwolf

    She’s a lesbian, and one who seems to really enjoy bitching about the relationships she’s had with men.

    • Agree: ginger bread man, Russ
    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    @Joe S.Walker

    Look up “Gaylor Swift” on Tumblr and Reddit. Figuring out which men Taylor actually dated, which were just for promotional purposes, and which female friends she hooked up with is the leftist gen Z version of who Killed the Kennedies.

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker

  50. @Anon
    Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @AnotherDad

    Imagine yourself your current age and then wind it back to before you were born. Just a minute before you were born. Imagine how it would feel to have your spine severed in utero. Think about that for a minute.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Wade Hampton

    I'd have little ability to comprehend what was going on, much like an animal being led to slaughter.

    And anyway, that didn't happen. So question stands.

    , @Anonymous
    @Wade Hampton

    Life is so dreadful, so full of calamities and heartbreak that it would be better to have never been born.
    But who is so fortunate as that? Fewer than on in a hundred thousand.

    or maybe a few more, given widespread abortion.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  51. @Wade Hampton
    It is apropos at this point in the culture wars to post the video by the great political philosopher Taylor Swift in response to the rioters threatening to lynch Supreme Court Justices.

    I don't think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin' hot. And her message is on point. You (lefty fascists) need to calm down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @JimB, @Amwolf

    I don’t think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin’ hot.

    The average PTA mother in the 1960s was younger than Taylor Swift

  52. @Bardon Kaldian
    There is no way these issues can be resolved rationally, because they depend on world-views & are actually non-negotiable.

    Abortion is one of the 4 “big killings” where there can be no agreement on the topic:

    abortion
    suicide
    death penalty/capital punishment
    euthanasia

    Religious people tend to be against all four (except death penalty among Christian Evangelicals), while secular people are, generally, for all four, most of them strongly opposed to death penalty.

    So, basically- it is a clash of world-views.

    Replies: @aNewBanner

    Isn’t this the heart of the matter. John Paul II called one the culture of life and the other the culture of death. Twenty years ago, that seemed needlessly provocative. Now, it seems about accurate.

    There are many things where it is impossible to split the difference. When I was younger, I used to think that one could just be tolerant and live-and-let-live. It turns out that I didn’t believe in my own ideas, didn’t follow arguments through to the end, and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity. I now understand that I was wrong, quite wrong. (See drag queen story hour.)

    Roe introduced a terrible moral question into the country on par with slavery. I don’t know if the wound can be healed without another terrible conflict.

    Also, I don’t trust the NYT for one moment to quote Trump fairly or accurately.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @aNewBanner


    ...and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity.
     
    Same-sex "matrimony" is at the bottom of the slope, not the top. Perhaps elective abortion should be viewed the same way.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  53. @JimDandy
    it needs a fair amount of federalism.


    Agreed. American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy. The constitution clearly gives people the right to bear arms, and does not give people the right to an abortion.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre, @pyrrhus

    Realistic questions:
    — Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    — Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened).

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Those questions are not germane to the Roe Vs. Wade discussion. The 14th Amendment does not give women the right to get an abortion. The matter has been appropriately sent to the states.

    Replies: @The Real World

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened
     
    Viability has always seemed a backward standard to me. It's like saying you can kick your kids out of the house anytime until they're 18, but not afterward.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @S. Anonyia

    , @Mike Tre
    @The Real World

    The "right" to abort isn't established. You're presenting a false premise. You also don't understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus' right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It's pretty simple actually.

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit or protect the act of abortion. Roe v Wade took away the states' right to make the determination. That is why it is bad. The overturning of R v. W merely puts the decision to outlaw abortion or not back into the hands of the states.

    Replies: @Anon, @Prester John, @Dmon, @Zero Philosopher

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @The Real World


    — Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
     
    It doesn't do so explicitly and the Court in Dobbs didn't prohibit abortions. Legislation of public health, safety, and morals is well within the traditional purview of State legislatures.

    Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened).
     
    "Prohibit the right to bodily autonomy" is verbal jujitsu. It certainly permits the invasion of bodily autonomy for compelling State interests like criminal punishment (the State can hang you, but only after a trial) or military conscription (the United States can require you to serve under arms and order you to a certain death in combat).
    , @epebble
    @The Real World

    Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?

    Same place it prohibits the right to kill, rape, rob, steal etc.,

    Constitutional Jurisprudence does not mean learning to use Control-F

  54. @Twinkie
    @Almost Missouri


    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.
     
    You and Audacious Epigone. Miss that blog.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Almost Missouri

    What holds the US together is force, affluence that is fading and the welfare state. A currency collapse means the financial glue comes to and end and then different peoples and regions go their separate ways.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It's a tough world out there. A US broken up into several countries would not be able to project the force needed to keep the system of world trade going. China and Russia would take advantage of the situation and take Taiwan, the Baltics, etc. - maybe even go further. Poland, Vietnam, etc. We are living in the Pax Americana and without an Americana there is no Pax and the next Dark Age awaits. I would rather that AOC be POTUS than to see America fall apart. If you think your affluence is fading now, you ain't seen nuthin' yet after America splits.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

  55. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Realistic questions:
    -- Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    -- Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother's life is threatened).

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @epebble

    Those questions are not germane to the Roe Vs. Wade discussion. The 14th Amendment does not give women the right to get an abortion. The matter has been appropriately sent to the states.

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    So, in other words, the last 8 or 9 words of your prior comment are irrelevant. As in, not germane. Got that cleared up.

    Replies: @JimDandy

  56. @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Almost Missouri, @ginger bread man, @AKAHorace, @Art Deco

    Elections are made and broken by margins of 1-2%. In the 2 most recent presidential elections, the victories were clenched (first by trump, then by Biden) by margins of ~0.1%. I can see many dem and ind registered women who may have flirted with voting rep in 2022 (due to inflation, Wokeness, Biden’s dementia or the million and one other problems) will have a really hard time doing so now that abortion is “threatened”.

    • Agree: AKAHorace
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @ginger bread man


    Elections are made and broken by margins of 1-2%.
     
    Except when they aren't.

    Of course the USA of 1980 is not the USA of 2022-24, but I chose that because it most closely resembles what's happening in the country today economically in my living memory, and it was a "landslide." I'll leave it to others to discuss if landslides are even possible today, but please keep in mind we're doing a variation of the 1970s at warp speed, and "Biden" might help achieve even worse outcomes.

    Something leaning in the direction of 1929-32, even exceeding it is not out of the question (food is a real wildcard here, at least in disturbing people even if there are enough calories to go around in the USA). So normal patterns and rules of thumb may not apply. Nor may Plan B or C or whatever level fortification of elections work, that's part of the genius of institutions like the Electoral College.
  57. @Wade Hampton
    @Anon

    Imagine yourself your current age and then wind it back to before you were born. Just a minute before you were born. Imagine how it would feel to have your spine severed in utero. Think about that for a minute.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    I’d have little ability to comprehend what was going on, much like an animal being led to slaughter.

    And anyway, that didn’t happen. So question stands.

  58. @Joe S.Walker
    @Wade Hampton

    She's a lesbian, and one who seems to really enjoy bitching about the relationships she's had with men.

    Replies: @ginger bread man

    Look up “Gaylor Swift” on Tumblr and Reddit. Figuring out which men Taylor actually dated, which were just for promotional purposes, and which female friends she hooked up with is the leftist gen Z version of who Killed the Kennedies.

    • Replies: @Joe S.Walker
    @ginger bread man

    I suspect one reason she doesn't come out is that if she wrote songs griping and pissing about her old girlfriends it'd be a crime against wokeness.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  59. Many states have laws banning abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned. Which state will be the first to backtrack and legalize abortion? Banning abortion at the state level was easy with Roe v Wade in place.

  60. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @R.G. Camara


    ...how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.
     
    You make many good points.

    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

    Maybe it's better not to think about this, period?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

    This post glows.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @R.G. Camara


    This post glows.
     
    And I thought I was paranoid!
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @R.G. Camara


    This post glows.
     
    https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/shape/cover/sport/541196-istock-668710858-c6154b2b558640e9a72fd24b02fc73e1.jpg
  61. @Redneck farmer
    @michael droy

    There's a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mr. Anon, @Dream

    Indeed.

  62. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Realistic questions:
    -- Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    -- Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother's life is threatened).

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @epebble

    Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened

    Viability has always seemed a backward standard to me. It’s like saying you can kick your kids out of the house anytime until they’re 18, but not afterward.

    • Thanks: Ron Mexico
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Reg Cæsar

    The bullshit loophole stems from the 7-2 Roe vs. Wade decision wherein the court rather arbitrarily wrote laws based on trimesters. Post-viable abortions were made illegal except in cases where the mother's life or "health" was in danger. So, when a pregnant woman says she's depressed her mental "health" is in danger, and, thus, a baby who could have lived outside of the womb is legally slaughtered. The reflexive airhead liberal response when you point this out is, "THAT'S NOT A THING! THAT NEVER HAPPENS!" It happens. It should be classified as murder. And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.

    Replies: @The Real World

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Reg Cæsar

    Viability is logical. After all, living people with heart beats (including young people, considering they have the best organs) often quickly have their organs harvested after a neurologist declares them “brain dead” in the hospital. The criteria for brain death is somewhat questionable and some critically ill people, especially those with strokes or TBIs, can make surprising recoveries given time. If society is okay with organ donation they should be fine with the abortions of fetuses that aren’t yet viable (like with allegedly brain dead people, the fetus has limited consciousness).

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe. Let abortion be legal in the first trimester and then make exceptions for rape/incest/genetic defects/health of the mother after that.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Real World, @Almost Missouri

  63. @R.G. Camara
    The babykillers are reeing, but the fight must continue. Not until abortion is banned and severely prosecuted in all 50 states can we really say babykilling is knocked out.

    In a side note, Merrick Garland still refuses to enforce the law and arrest those people threatening and protesting outside Supreme Court Justices houses for stopping babykilling.

    Which also leads to this second side note: as Garland has abandoned his duty to protect them, its terribly unlikely the Supreme Court will rule against any laws that restrict their ability to defend themselves. Meaning gun laws are likely to topple with greater alacrity at their feet. The Left's man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct---because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren't going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    In other words, and ironically given his failed status as a failed Supreme Court nominee, Garland likely just radicalized the Supreme Court on gun rights, but in the opposite way Garland and his supporters hoped.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Dr. X, @Hibernian

    The Left’s man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct—because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren’t going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    Yep.

    In his autobiography My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas recounts how as a poor black child in the swamps of Georgia his grandfather had a .22 rifle he used to shoot deer in the head so the family could eat.

    Although he didn’t say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose. The rifle was probably highly prized for home defense, and likely his only means of defense — the probability that his black grandfather would have been issued a carry permit for a pistol in segregated Georgia was probably zero.

    I think it’s a safe bet that Ol’ Clarence goes to bed every night with a piece under his pillow. A lot of Southern blacks do, because they don’t live in a bubble and are intimately familiar with many of life’s harsher realities.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Dr. X


    Although he didn’t say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose.
     
    Condoleezza Rice said that out loud on at least one occasion.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Dr. X

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyEDMJRQVVM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6K6o1iqglo


    Ida B. Wells and the Winchester Rifle
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_vMe58AzIo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nKy72ollbg
  64. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks. Most countries allow abortion up until around 12 weeks. I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother. Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law, which allows abortion up until 15 weeks because this gives responsible women plenty of time to know that they are pregnant and get an abortion.

    However, this doesn’t account for IRRESPONSIBLE women. Women who are junkies and who are so befuddled that they can’t get their shit together to have an abortion before week 15 or 20. While in the abstract human life should be valued, no good things are waiting for these fetuses. At best they are going to be burdens to society. At worst they are going to be life takers. So the reality is that these are exactly the abortions that should be allowed, at least up to the Roe limit of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb so it is fair to call it a baby and morally right to prohibit baby killing. But before that, the fetus is not quite a baby – it is more than nothing but less than a full human being.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don’t agree with. A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby. But reasonable people can differ on this – this is why we have (50 state) legislatures, to do precisely this kind of line drawing.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Consider the state of medicine, and biology, at the time this was codified. This is the equivalent of leeches.


    https://www.sciencehistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/twitter_card/public/leechphysician.jpg?itok=52HbWmjt

    I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother.
     
    What about the rights of the father? And of the brothers and sisters and grandparents? This is where rights-talk gets out-of-hand and is no longer useful.

    Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians for Life, saw right through this. The question is not about rights, but about obligation, incurred obligation. You created this "monster", now you take care of it. We already hold the father to this standard, at least on paper.

    Ironically, Doris Gordon was a Randian. It's the pro-choicers who generally hate Auntie Ayn who hold to her solipsistic sexual ethics.

    Replies: @Frau Katze

    , @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Modern science, bro. Having sex with a 12 year old girls used to be legal under common law too, because people thought they could consent. Now we know the brain doesn’t mature until much later.

    IRRESPONSIBLE women
     
    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life. I’m afraid we don’t do wholesale condemnation of, and punishment-by-death for, pre-crimes just yet.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing
     
    Didn’t realize the pre-Roe South was such a hotbed of “extreme Catholicism.”

    that most countries don’t agree with.
     
    Most countries don’t agree with our Second Amendment either. So what?

    A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby.
     
    First of all, conflating a conceived baby with an egg is disingenuous and deceitful. Second, human life begins at conception.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre

    , @Mike Tre
    @Jack D

    "Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don’t agree with."

    HAHAHAHA! Says the guy who's first though after birth is to mutilate a male's genitals.

  65. @aNewBanner
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Isn’t this the heart of the matter. John Paul II called one the culture of life and the other the culture of death. Twenty years ago, that seemed needlessly provocative. Now, it seems about accurate.

    There are many things where it is impossible to split the difference. When I was younger, I used to think that one could just be tolerant and live-and-let-live. It turns out that I didn’t believe in my own ideas, didn’t follow arguments through to the end, and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity. I now understand that I was wrong, quite wrong. (See drag queen story hour.)

    Roe introduced a terrible moral question into the country on par with slavery. I don’t know if the wound can be healed without another terrible conflict.

    Also, I don’t trust the NYT for one moment to quote Trump fairly or accurately.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity.

    Same-sex “matrimony” is at the bottom of the slope, not the top. Perhaps elective abortion should be viewed the same way.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Same-sex “matrimony” is at the bottom of the slope, not the top.
     
    Oh, no. With these crazy leftists, there is no bottom. There is always another level of descent.
  66. @Joe S.Walker
    @anonymous

    I get the feeling that when right-wingers talk about a person needing to be killed someone might actually do it, whereas those tweeters will just move on to squeeing at the next Marvel movie having Iron Man as a black lesbian with a strap-on built into her armour or something.

    Replies: @Anon

    It seems like those antifa types have no problem working themselves into a violent frenzy, despite being short and scrawny.

    • Replies: @TWS
    @Anon

    When you have the government and big business as well as several NGOs on your side it's easy to be brave.

  67. The protestors are just a bunch of sign carrying younger white women with a few male lesbians thrown in for ”diversities’ sake. No antifa. No negroes smashing storefronts. The hard left had plenty of time to organize for this event but it doesn’t seem to be something that interests them ( or Soros). Even the crowds are on the small side for a warm Friday night. Could it be that Biden’s \$5 dollar/gallon gasoline is more effective in controlling mobs than riot police?

    I guess Abortion is an inside the Beltway issue and without FBI agent provocateurs this has no legs.

    • Agree: Bernard
  68. @AKAHorace
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    I agree. This is a victory for the Democrats. The Brietbart and National Review right wingers are unbelievably stupid to be celebrating this. David Cole says it better than I can.


    https://www.takimag.com/article/drowning-dems-grab-a-pro-life-preserver/

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Russ

    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in

    A day before the abortion decision, we had “conservative” stalwarts such as John Cornyn and Lyndsey Graham and a dozen or so other Mitch McConnell pubic lice in the Senate undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine. Install McConnell as Majority Leader in November? No, and neither Cole Steyn nor abortion had one damned thing to do with it.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Russ


    [McConnell and company who I seriously wonder if they want to win in 2022 passed a bill to] undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch....
     
    Unless the "bargain" and "compromise" massively changed, it doesn't impose a Federal Red flag regime, but provides financial incentives for states to impose them. Given that we RKBA types have been really winning since 1986 almost entirely in the individual states, the catastrophes may be limited in scope, with some states like Florida already having done this (and most people flagged not even owning guns), and a number of more pro-RKBA states passing on this.

    The volatile mess of these laws which have already killed two in Maryland, one an outright murder by the police also suggests there may be in due course severe push back like we saw build up starting in the 1970s when the ATF started persecuting gun and gun store owners, and which I believe helped those state wins. Which have gone so far as half the states in the nation being Constitutional Carry, no license required. Which helps put New York and NYC's kvetching in context.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Russ


    ...for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine.
     
    They also empower whites to keep guns away from blacks. In theory, anyway.

    This would be their most popular aspect, even here. (Especially here?) Funny they aren't marketing them this way.

    Do you think Sheriff Butler should have given that license to Rev MLK? Butler's judgment is honored in Montgomery to this day:


    New jail to be named in honor of former sheriff
  69. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Bad take, this whole thing will blow over quickly. The average idiot can understand that the decision didn’t “make abortion illegal, it just allowed each state to decide. But I digress, my real point is that the economy always matters most, when it’s bad more so. If things stay the same it will be an epic wipeout. So much so that even the Republican’s will have a hard time fucking it up. It hasn’t been like this in 40 years, what happened then?

  70. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Twinkie

    What holds the US together is force, affluence that is fading and the welfare state. A currency collapse means the financial glue comes to and end and then different peoples and regions go their separate ways.

    Replies: @Jack D

    It’s a tough world out there. A US broken up into several countries would not be able to project the force needed to keep the system of world trade going. China and Russia would take advantage of the situation and take Taiwan, the Baltics, etc. – maybe even go further. Poland, Vietnam, etc. We are living in the Pax Americana and without an Americana there is no Pax and the next Dark Age awaits. I would rather that AOC be POTUS than to see America fall apart. If you think your affluence is fading now, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet after America splits.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    @Jack D

    Vietnam is not a US colony. Vietnam has been in an economic boom since 1981.

    Ho Chi Minh first defeated the French in 1954, then the USA in 1972. Then he defeated an invading Chinese army in 1979.

    The USA on the other hand is a wreck. The US Dollar has been on life support since 1971 and lately is fading faster than someone triple vaxxed, then diagnosed with covid, and placed on a ventilator.

    The USA is stupid enough to have allowed Productivity and Jobs to be out sourced to China, a nation which the USA spends billions annually to sail the Indo-Pac fleet to contain China. That only makes sense to the Walton Family and the MIC.

    Or it could be the powers that be are just stripping the USA of all value before lighting a Phoenician funeral pyre to end the empire, that wasn't called an empire.

  71. @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    At common law, abortion was not "baby killing" until the "quickening" when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks. Most countries allow abortion up until around 12 weeks. I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother. Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law, which allows abortion up until 15 weeks because this gives responsible women plenty of time to know that they are pregnant and get an abortion.

    However, this doesn't account for IRRESPONSIBLE women. Women who are junkies and who are so befuddled that they can't get their shit together to have an abortion before week 15 or 20. While in the abstract human life should be valued, no good things are waiting for these fetuses. At best they are going to be burdens to society. At worst they are going to be life takers. So the reality is that these are exactly the abortions that should be allowed, at least up to the Roe limit of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb so it is fair to call it a baby and morally right to prohibit baby killing. But before that, the fetus is not quite a baby - it is more than nothing but less than a full human being.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don't agree with. A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby. But reasonable people can differ on this - this is why we have (50 state) legislatures, to do precisely this kind of line drawing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Twinkie, @Mike Tre

    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.

    Consider the state of medicine, and biology, at the time this was codified. This is the equivalent of leeches.

    I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother.

    What about the rights of the father? And of the brothers and sisters and grandparents? This is where rights-talk gets out-of-hand and is no longer useful.

    Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians for Life, saw right through this. The question is not about rights, but about obligation, incurred obligation. You created this “monster”, now you take care of it. We already hold the father to this standard, at least on paper.

    Ironically, Doris Gordon was a Randian. It’s the pro-choicers who generally hate Auntie Ayn who hold to her solipsistic sexual ethics.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    @Reg Cæsar

    Before modern medicine there was no way to end a pregnancy safely.

    The issue is completely modern. I challenge anyone to find the issue discussed before modern medicine made it safe.

    I definitely recall that there were no classmates dropping out of school due to pregnancy when I was in high school (graduated 1969).

    But there were whispers that a qualified doctor could carry out an abortion secretly. I’m not positive about these whispers though.

  72. @anonymous
    Just for the record, I think abortion should be legal before the point of fetal viability, but I don't believe there is a constitutional right to an abortion.
    There wasn't a constitutional right to abortion in 1972 or 1939 or 1897 or 1915 and there wasn't one suddenly in 1973. This arrogant decision overturning the duly enacted laws in 45 (!) states, was created out of whole cloth by seven power-hungry men who were looking to codify an elite consensus on an issue they damn-well knew the citizenry felt overwhelmingly different about at the time. That the public, regardless of how you may personally feel on this matter, let such a farce stand for almost 50 years is a disgrace.

    As for the claim that abortion really has been a blessing in disguise given the demographics of those who usually terminate pregnancies (poor, minority) and that this has had the effect keeping America's feral underclass from exploding in size, these analyses don't take into account how mandatory birth control for all welfare recipients could have been just as effective (or more) in this regard.
    Under a Court that is strictly reading the US Constitution states should now have the ability to require hormonal contraceptives (which are nearly foolproof, btw) or tubal ligations for all unwed women on welfare. Such a measure would likely act as a very effective counter-balance, demographically speaking, in the states where abortions are now barred. The only question is whether the people in those states have the brains and the balls to implement such a measure.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Thoughts

    Agree, except for this sentence:

    That the public, regardless of how you may personally feel on this matter, let such a farce stand for almost 50 years is a disgrace.

    The trouble with the Supremes’ habit of reading new law into the Constitution is that the new law becomes by definition constitutional, i.e., the legislature cannot pass a statute to overrule the new (but fake) constitutional law. Presumably that’s why they do it: it really does make them an un-overruleable super-legislature.

    It took 49 years of relentless political combat, but the people took the high road, got actual Constitutionalists back onto the Court, and today those Constitutionalists repealed the half-century-ago judicial coup d’etat.

    • Agree: AnotherDad, Bernard
    • Thanks: Hibernian
  73. @Jonathan Mason
    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    However it does look like the US could eventually be headed for devolution, and perhaps a split into red and blue zones, both of them one-party States.

    Both zones would be happier and able to live the way they wanted.

    When some states define abortion as murder, and others have it as legal, you're going to have all sorts of problems over extradition, and ultimately abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States. I'm not sure where that leaves the swing States.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hibernian, @Muggles, @West reanimator

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    Isn’t the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I’m aware of the difference in meaning of the term “public school” between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)

    • Replies: @Adept
    @Hibernian

    Perhaps, but Scotland feels like an entirely different country. Driving from England to Scotland is quite like driving from France to Belgium. If anything, the differences are even more extreme than that.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Hibernian


    Isn’t the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I’m aware of the difference in meaning of the term “public school” between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)
     
    No school buses in UK. Well, there are some dedicated school buses, but most children are transported to schools in regular local buses of many different color shades, and if you are over 8 years of age and live within three miles of the school, you are expected to walk (or cycle) unless disabled, or there is no safe walking route. In the US it seems general that there are huge fleets of (always?) yellow buses dedicated to transporting children to schools, which are idled during school vacations and weekends and not used for other purposes.

    Scotland, on the other hand, has a different education system from England, having a different age of entry, a different grade system, a different curriculum, different exams and qualifications, and a different system of undergraduate degrees. (For example, in Scotland children have 7 years of elementary school.)

    However my main point is that the 50 states of the US are still remarkably similar considering that they are spread over thousands of miles and several different climate zones and have very different histories.

    The 12 independent states of South America display much more diversity in everyday life, than the 50 states of the USA.

  74. @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.
     
    Oddly, when there were fewer states, they were much more different, slavery being an obvious example. Since then, the worldwide homogenization of everything ("globalism") has caused convergence, but there were also specific efforts by the US Federal government to advance this, such as the War of Northern Aggression, the New Deal, and the ongoing Fed chicanery of withholding highway funding from states who won't conform to central diktat.

    abortion could be the new Dred Scott.
     
    You are not alone in forecasting Roe secession, but I don't see it.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States.
     
    Rather I think the arrow of causation might go the other way: a(nother) disputed election result in 2024 (or later) might result in two Presidents, one Red one Blue, with secession/civil war resulting from that schism.

    Still, I think that the most likely secession/civil war genesis is not philosophical but material: most likely a currency collapse. Once the FedGov loses its superpower of infinite financing, no one will listen to it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @SaneClownPosse

    There were slaves above the Mason-Dixon Line until after the War of Northern Aggression ended.

    Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (Nothing at all to do with Juneteenth, which could be said to be a racist construct.) only freed slaves in the States doing business as the Confederate States of America.

    The freeing of the slaves was an act intended to destabilize the South, as an economic weapon of mass destruction. Lincoln wasn’t thinking at all about the well being of Porgy and Bess.

    The Confederacy was a return to the original Articles of Confederation, which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in. Where Basic Rights were an after thought as Amendments to the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @SaneClownPosse

    Agree with all what you say, but that doesn't change my point that the demography, customs, and laws were far more different between the States back then than they are now.

    , @Curle
    @SaneClownPosse

    “ which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in.”

    The constitution didn’t do it. Folks like Hamilton, Story and Marshall played their part, but ultimately it was the war /debt financing knowledge developed during the Napoleonic wars combined with the industrialization of weapons production , northern population growth, available mercenaries and this information being put at the disposal of the smart but ruthless gang supporting Lincoln, a group who saw their big chance to become perma-millionaires by using federal money to get rich through public improvement schemes. The piece of paper you call the constitution was no match for these fellows.

  75. @R.G. Camara
    The babykillers are reeing, but the fight must continue. Not until abortion is banned and severely prosecuted in all 50 states can we really say babykilling is knocked out.

    In a side note, Merrick Garland still refuses to enforce the law and arrest those people threatening and protesting outside Supreme Court Justices houses for stopping babykilling.

    Which also leads to this second side note: as Garland has abandoned his duty to protect them, its terribly unlikely the Supreme Court will rule against any laws that restrict their ability to defend themselves. Meaning gun laws are likely to topple with greater alacrity at their feet. The Left's man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct---because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren't going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.

    In other words, and ironically given his failed status as a failed Supreme Court nominee, Garland likely just radicalized the Supreme Court on gun rights, but in the opposite way Garland and his supporters hoped.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Dr. X, @Hibernian

    The last thing we need is SCOTUS justices defending their homes with .22s. Let them move to West Virginia and be protected by the local sheriff. There’s a commuter train to DC from Harper’s Ferry.

  76. @Wade Hampton
    It is apropos at this point in the culture wars to post the video by the great political philosopher Taylor Swift in response to the rioters threatening to lynch Supreme Court Justices.

    I don't think this is what she meant, but she still is smokin' hot. And her message is on point. You (lefty fascists) need to calm down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @JimB, @Amwolf

    She’s a complete degenerate regardless of how “smokin’ hot” she is. Her message in this music video is extremely modernistic and a cancer that fuels culture rot.

    A little bit more cheerful, Romanian style…

  77. @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Almost Missouri, @ginger bread man, @AKAHorace, @Art Deco

    Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    Will the ruling make one side turn out in greater numbers than would have otherwise? Hard to see how since every election is now “the most important election in history” for a scrolling list of reasons. But more so because the blue margin of victory is now synthetically manufactured, so turnout is moot.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Almost Missouri

    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard in an effort to get a large enough majority to legalize it at the Federal level. Will it work? Probably not. This is going to be a long hot summer. Riots, blackouts, water shortages. Better be ready if you live in SoCal.

    I think independents will ultimately punish Democrats over inflation and crime.

    The media of course will do everything they can to convince urban voters that they aren't actually seeing an increase in crime by men or man like men in mannish hoodies.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Almost Missouri

    The integrity of elections is the joker in the 2022 elections. The GOP allowed the Dems to create a system in many states that was guaranteed to produce fraudulent votes. I don't know how many states have corrected the fraud-prone systems.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Almost Missouri


    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.
     
    But it might change where they cast their vote. A lot or traditionally conservative states, in the Southeast for example, are seeing a big influx of people moving in from liberal states like California. And the newcomers were starting to support the same things in their new homes that befouled the places they left. This might tend to arrest that trend. Places like Texas and Alabama are going to suddenly seem intolerable to those liberal Karens who are so wound up about the abortion issue. Maybe the ones who haven't gone there yet won't go. Maybe some of the ones who are there already will leave.

    We could see a real polarization of the electorate over these issues, making the Red states redder and the Blue states bluer. As for the Blue states - whatever - they can have an abortion clinic in every Starbucks for all I care - get an abortion with your latte. But for the Red states, it might make it a lot less likely that they will have Drag Queen Story Hour and Reparations.

  78. anonymous[585] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

  79. @Dr. X
    @R.G. Camara


    The Left’s man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct—because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren’t going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.
     
    Yep.

    In his autobiography My Grandfather's Son, Thomas recounts how as a poor black child in the swamps of Georgia his grandfather had a .22 rifle he used to shoot deer in the head so the family could eat.

    Although he didn't say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose. The rifle was probably highly prized for home defense, and likely his only means of defense -- the probability that his black grandfather would have been issued a carry permit for a pistol in segregated Georgia was probably zero.

    I think it's a safe bet that Ol' Clarence goes to bed every night with a piece under his pillow. A lot of Southern blacks do, because they don't live in a bubble and are intimately familiar with many of life's harsher realities.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin

    Although he didn’t say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose.

    Condoleezza Rice said that out loud on at least one occasion.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Hibernian

    Pretty sure those two legged critters were likely to be black than white.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  80. @Jack D
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It's a tough world out there. A US broken up into several countries would not be able to project the force needed to keep the system of world trade going. China and Russia would take advantage of the situation and take Taiwan, the Baltics, etc. - maybe even go further. Poland, Vietnam, etc. We are living in the Pax Americana and without an Americana there is no Pax and the next Dark Age awaits. I would rather that AOC be POTUS than to see America fall apart. If you think your affluence is fading now, you ain't seen nuthin' yet after America splits.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

    Vietnam is not a US colony. Vietnam has been in an economic boom since 1981.

    Ho Chi Minh first defeated the French in 1954, then the USA in 1972. Then he defeated an invading Chinese army in 1979.

    The USA on the other hand is a wreck. The US Dollar has been on life support since 1971 and lately is fading faster than someone triple vaxxed, then diagnosed with covid, and placed on a ventilator.

    The USA is stupid enough to have allowed Productivity and Jobs to be out sourced to China, a nation which the USA spends billions annually to sail the Indo-Pac fleet to contain China. That only makes sense to the Walton Family and the MIC.

    Or it could be the powers that be are just stripping the USA of all value before lighting a Phoenician funeral pyre to end the empire, that wasn’t called an empire.

  81. @Anon
    Interesting choice to release this decision on a Friday.

    Granted, not a lot of rioters have jobs, but still, why not a weekday?

    Replies: @LP5, @Ebony Obelisk, @JimDandy, @stari_momak

    So, if getting the already-divided populace at each others’ throats even more is the goal, what would be perhaps the best way of doing that? I’m rarely wrong when I am super-confident about political predictions–because I tend to make very, very safe predictions–but I was wrong on Roe vs. Wade. I remember telling my liberal friends many times over the decades, with a condescending smile, “The Republicans aren’t going to end Roe vs. Wade. And even if they did, it would just go back to the states. You could still get an abortion. But they aren’t going to end Roe vs. Wade. Don’t worry about that.” I guess I was kind of saying it like liberals say, “No one wants to take your guns away.” But I really never imagined that this could happen. It makes me slightly suspicious. Slightly.

  82. @ginger bread man
    @Dutch Boy

    Elections are made and broken by margins of 1-2%. In the 2 most recent presidential elections, the victories were clenched (first by trump, then by Biden) by margins of ~0.1%. I can see many dem and ind registered women who may have flirted with voting rep in 2022 (due to inflation, Wokeness, Biden’s dementia or the million and one other problems) will have a really hard time doing so now that abortion is “threatened”.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Elections are made and broken by margins of 1-2%.

    Except when they aren’t.

    Of course the USA of 1980 is not the USA of 2022-24, but I chose that because it most closely resembles what’s happening in the country today economically in my living memory, and it was a “landslide.” I’ll leave it to others to discuss if landslides are even possible today, but please keep in mind we’re doing a variation of the 1970s at warp speed, and “Biden” might help achieve even worse outcomes.

    Something leaning in the direction of 1929-32, even exceeding it is not out of the question (food is a real wildcard here, at least in disturbing people even if there are enough calories to go around in the USA). So normal patterns and rules of thumb may not apply. Nor may Plan B or C or whatever level fortification of elections work, that’s part of the genius of institutions like the Electoral College.

  83. @Russ
    @AKAHorace


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    A day before the abortion decision, we had "conservative" stalwarts such as John Cornyn and Lyndsey Graham and a dozen or so other Mitch McConnell pubic lice in the Senate undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine. Install McConnell as Majority Leader in November? No, and neither Cole Steyn nor abortion had one damned thing to do with it.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

    [McConnell and company who I seriously wonder if they want to win in 2022 passed a bill to] undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch….

    Unless the “bargain” and “compromise” massively changed, it doesn’t impose a Federal Red flag regime, but provides financial incentives for states to impose them. Given that we RKBA types have been really winning since 1986 almost entirely in the individual states, the catastrophes may be limited in scope, with some states like Florida already having done this (and most people flagged not even owning guns), and a number of more pro-RKBA states passing on this.

    The volatile mess of these laws which have already killed two in Maryland, one an outright murder by the police also suggests there may be in due course severe push back like we saw build up starting in the 1970s when the ATF started persecuting gun and gun store owners, and which I believe helped those state wins. Which have gone so far as half the states in the nation being Constitutional Carry, no license required. Which helps put New York and NYC’s kvetching in context.

  84. @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things.

    They could, but they don’t.

    If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don’t change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. … Its an obvious sham.

    Yes, unfortunately, this twisted and illegitimate route has become the main path of de facto federal legislation. But today’s ruling goes some way to foreclosing the federal kritarchy, so perhaps a new dawn beckons.

    This “legislating from the bench” thing was primarily started by the liberal-eulogized Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s. The Left thought they had a lock on this. Now that the law is being painfully returned to its proper parameters, they’re having a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, all they have to do is steal a couple more elections and appoint a couple more left-activist judges and all of this unaccustomed constitutionality will be reversed faster than a Trump-era Executive Order.

    Don’t get me started on the US voting system.

    Don’t get any of us started either. Steve doesn’t like it.

  85. @SaneClownPosse
    @Almost Missouri

    There were slaves above the Mason-Dixon Line until after the War of Northern Aggression ended.

    Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Nothing at all to do with Juneteenth, which could be said to be a racist construct.) only freed slaves in the States doing business as the Confederate States of America.

    The freeing of the slaves was an act intended to destabilize the South, as an economic weapon of mass destruction. Lincoln wasn't thinking at all about the well being of Porgy and Bess.

    The Confederacy was a return to the original Articles of Confederation, which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in. Where Basic Rights were an after thought as Amendments to the Constitution.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Curle

    Agree with all what you say, but that doesn’t change my point that the demography, customs, and laws were far more different between the States back then than they are now.

  86. Pathetic to see the “this is a victory for the dems” fools on this board.

    The premier leftist legislative symbol was just rescinded, and because people are going to I burn and riot over that, you think it is a loss.

    This is what an actual victory looks like.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Anon

    Agree. I hope the winners can capitalize on this to drive down the value of Lefty ‘Right Side of History’ shares.

  87. @Rooster16
    @Anon7

    Uniparty…

    I thought the same as you, interesting that in a year where the Republicans would wipe the floor with Democrats, that a rallying point would be created to level the playing field. In addition to lighting a fire under their base, it’ll be used as a pretense to “win at all costs” much like 2020; it’s ok to cheat because the other side is literally Darth Vader!! You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    To your point on Trump, I’ve already seen numerous people saying this ruling is all because of him, even though he’s been pretty mute on the whole subject. The Dems will ratchet up their propaganda arm (entire MSM) and by the time the midterms roll around, their base will be foaming at the mouth over a single issue.

    It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Anon7, @Rosie

    Rally point, win at all costs, foaming at the mouth, hating Clarence Thomas… Meh. This is nothing new. Remember what they said about G.W. Bush, McCain, Romney? If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf. It’s true that there is an element of the population that does continue to outdo itself, but this doesn’t seem to be persuading people who are persuadable.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @EdwardM


    If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf.
     
    I suspect some people don't notice them crying wolf, but they're not the persuadable as you later pointed out. But I'll point the Left has been doing this trope since the early 1940s when in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!), and with I assume the sole exception of Eisenhower because it would be so silly, every Republican presidential candidate after has been "literally Hitler" starting with Dewey (!). Now of course everyone on the right is "literally worse than Hitler" so as I think you're saying, "eh."

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Gordo
    @EdwardM


    If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler”
     
    Chaps a bit swarthy for that, perhaps they could try ‘literally Franco’?
  88. @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened
     
    Viability has always seemed a backward standard to me. It's like saying you can kick your kids out of the house anytime until they're 18, but not afterward.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @S. Anonyia

    The bullshit loophole stems from the 7-2 Roe vs. Wade decision wherein the court rather arbitrarily wrote laws based on trimesters. Post-viable abortions were made illegal except in cases where the mother’s life or “health” was in danger. So, when a pregnant woman says she’s depressed her mental “health” is in danger, and, thus, a baby who could have lived outside of the womb is legally slaughtered. The reflexive airhead liberal response when you point this out is, “THAT’S NOT A THING! THAT NEVER HAPPENS!” It happens. It should be classified as murder. And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions and trying to make a substantive case about them. Seriously, you miss the forest for the trees.


    And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.
     
    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her? He, who has the easiest, time-tested for eons and 100% accessible method for preventing an unwanted pregnancy but, couldn't be bothered or responsible enough to utilize it. What should his penance be?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar

  89. @Almost Missouri
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    I don't know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn't going to change anyone's vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    Will the ruling make one side turn out in greater numbers than would have otherwise? Hard to see how since every election is now "the most important election in history" for a scrolling list of reasons. But more so because the blue margin of victory is now synthetically manufactured, so turnout is moot.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dutch Boy, @Mr. Anon

    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard in an effort to get a large enough majority to legalize it at the Federal level. Will it work? Probably not. This is going to be a long hot summer. Riots, blackouts, water shortages. Better be ready if you live in SoCal.

    I think independents will ultimately punish Democrats over inflation and crime.

    The media of course will do everything they can to convince urban voters that they aren’t actually seeing an increase in crime by men or man like men in mannish hoodies.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @John Johnson


    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard
     
    I dunno, man, every time I accidentally encounter the Mainstream Media they are already full libtard, if not about abortion, then about guns, trannies, Trump, January 6th, the Ukraine, Covid, or whatever the Current Thing is. Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?

    24/7 full libtard is what they do. It's who they are.

    The world as it stands today is already the world with full-spectrum full-libtard media.

    Better be ready if you live in SoCal.
     
    I don't, but I do have family there. Not much I can do for them though, I fear.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  90. Anon[206] • Disclaimer says:

    Abortion was shoved down America’s throat by liberal dirtbags,such as Blackmun,the vile Brennan and the pumpkin Marshall.
    The libs wanted sex equality and to destroy society. They did a good job!
    Since no man can get pregnant and women often get preggers despite efforts to the contrary,the feminist,believing that power comes out the barrel of a gun,accepted that if worse comes to worse,insure equality by killing the fetus.
    A rough form of equality.
    But now,given the massive changes society has undergone,we may want to have abortion not to tear down and remake societybut to….defend it.
    As all of us “Whitie” types know,blacks & browns get most abortions.
    They may,in some states,have to either forego abortion or get butchered by illegal aborters.
    This may result in our country going down the tubes ever faster.

  91. @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened
     
    Viability has always seemed a backward standard to me. It's like saying you can kick your kids out of the house anytime until they're 18, but not afterward.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @S. Anonyia

    Viability is logical. After all, living people with heart beats (including young people, considering they have the best organs) often quickly have their organs harvested after a neurologist declares them “brain dead” in the hospital. The criteria for brain death is somewhat questionable and some critically ill people, especially those with strokes or TBIs, can make surprising recoveries given time. If society is okay with organ donation they should be fine with the abortions of fetuses that aren’t yet viable (like with allegedly brain dead people, the fetus has limited consciousness).

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe. Let abortion be legal in the first trimester and then make exceptions for rape/incest/genetic defects/health of the mother after that.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @S. Anonyia

    "Brain death" is very different from normal pregnancy. Let the latter proceed, and viability occurs. There is no legitimate reason to stop it. Not if we're talking about adults.

    , @The Real World
    @S. Anonyia

    YES, you have brought up something very important that I was largely unaware of about a year and half ago.

    A story: Early March 2021, a friend of mine hears from longtime friends that their 36 yr old daughter is seriously ill in the hospital. She was fine on Wed, Thurs she developed a bad headache and it got worse thru the day. By evening she was in horrible pain so they take her to the Emergency Room.

    She was diagnosed with two brain aneurysms, they put her under, repaired them, then put her in an induced coma. I don't have all the details but, by Sunday the Docs are claiming she is "brain dead". She had been on an organ donor list (BIG mistake, I've learned) plus her parents knew she was. So, the hospital organ donation people met with the parents and, somehow, in all their shock and exhaustion, they agreed to have her organs harvested!! Let me repeat, into hospital on Thurs night and by Sun the Docs are claiming she's gone and the harvesters are making their pitch. Mon morning the parents agreed and let their daughter be carved without taking more time and doing more medical consults!

    I find that story to be absolutely horrifying and cannot possibly imagine that those parents haven't deeply regretted their hasty, permanent decision. I started doing some online research and learned that, you're correct, there are Doctors who dispute the very diagnosis of "brain dead" so, that's a huge problem. I also learned that having declared yourself an organ donor on drivers license or a state list, etc. makes you a ready target in these types of situations. Her altruistic choice likely cost her her life.

    Separately, people are very bizarre in their uneven and hypocritical ideas about which lives matter and which don't so much. We send thousands of living, breathing, young adults off to be slaughtered in wars for profit and conquest and people don't get very bothered about that which is pretty sick. But, they think they have the right to impose control over a strangers pregnancy. Smh..

    , @Almost Missouri
    @S. Anonyia


    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe.
     
    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  92. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn

    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    • LOL: TWS
  93. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    It’s so weird watching the Dem politicians’ responses. I have to constantly remind myself that the tears and apoplectic rage are really expertly-disguised, nay, Oscar-worthy euphoria.

  94. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    London calling Ebony Obelisk: “John has a long mustache. Repeat, John has a long mustache.”

  95. @Anon
    Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @AnotherDad

    Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?

    I could paint a picture of a different sort of sane, cohesive, family-children-future oriented society that actually would be quite beneficial to all the people in it. (Unfortunately, that’s not the society we have.)

    But the main point here is that the Supreme Court isn’t banning abortion or stipulating anything about abortion one way or another. It’s simply–applying the Constitution–and kicking the issue back to the people of every state to decide it however they wish.

    Republican, constitutional government actually is beneficial to you, compared to elite diktat.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Anon
    @AnotherDad

    The constitution says states have the right to ban it, whatever.

    How does it benefit me when they do so?

    Replies: @Redman

  96. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebt to Ebony Obelisk for clearly stating what needed to be said. Not only was it authentic urban gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

    • LOL: Ron Mexico
    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Che Blutarsky

    Yes, but what about the cattle-raping?

  97. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.

    Says the passionate anti-Nazi. Now that’s what I call CHUTZPAH!

  98. @mc23
    If the US was willing to settle on European restrictions they could probably pass a law at the Federal level. Ironically the Mississippi law leading to the latest ruling is more liberal for abortions then most of Europe.

    Here in the US it has to be full term abortions or nothing.

    Maybe our ruling class isn't the worst but it's not for lack of trying.

    https://twitter.com/saluwe/status/1540402451337076739?s=20&t=d-rphtkCNdBjwXWsVGstJQ

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @kahein

    Here in the US it has to be full term abortions or nothing.

    Roe v Wade enacted a blanket legalization of abortions during the first trimester, with restrictions possible in the next two trimesters (all that despite the Constitution not once mentioning the word “abortion” or “trimester”). However that wasn’t good enough for abortion supporters. They kept pushing back the allowable term to include up to and even after birth.

    Opponents of gun control have paid attention. When liberals say “this far and no further” what they really mean is “this far and no further today, but tomorrow we’ll take everything we can”. They’ve pursued this tack on every issue – abortion, the homosexual agenda, and – it is to be assumed – on gun control. That’s why so many 2nd amendment supporters are absolutists. Slippery slopes are real and they are slippery.

  99. @Dr. X
    @R.G. Camara


    The Left’s man in the DOJ may just inadvertanly have made most gun laws defunct—because Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas et al. aren’t going to forget these creeps on their lawns, the threats to their families, or how the White House and DOJ did nothing to stop it, and protect themselves.
     
    Yep.

    In his autobiography My Grandfather's Son, Thomas recounts how as a poor black child in the swamps of Georgia his grandfather had a .22 rifle he used to shoot deer in the head so the family could eat.

    Although he didn't say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose. The rifle was probably highly prized for home defense, and likely his only means of defense -- the probability that his black grandfather would have been issued a carry permit for a pistol in segregated Georgia was probably zero.

    I think it's a safe bet that Ol' Clarence goes to bed every night with a piece under his pillow. A lot of Southern blacks do, because they don't live in a bubble and are intimately familiar with many of life's harsher realities.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin

    Ida B. Wells and the Winchester Rifle

  100. @Redneck farmer
    @michael droy

    There's a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mr. Anon, @Dream

    There’s a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    Aye. And – to Mr. Droy – take your rotten royal family with you.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Mr. Anon

    Take back
    Jonathan Mason!
    Give 'em all
    some place to go...

    You're jammin' me.
    You're jammin' me...

    And, thank you, Redneck Farmer. They didn't understand then, and nearly 250 years later, they still don't. Exhibit A: Jonathan Mason.

  101. @Almost Missouri
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    I don't know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn't going to change anyone's vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    Will the ruling make one side turn out in greater numbers than would have otherwise? Hard to see how since every election is now "the most important election in history" for a scrolling list of reasons. But more so because the blue margin of victory is now synthetically manufactured, so turnout is moot.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dutch Boy, @Mr. Anon

    The integrity of elections is the joker in the 2022 elections. The GOP allowed the Dems to create a system in many states that was guaranteed to produce fraudulent votes. I don’t know how many states have corrected the fraud-prone systems.

    • Agree: JR Ewing
  102. @R.G. Camara
    @The Wild Geese Howard


    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

     

    This post glows.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Reg Cæsar

    This post glows.

    And I thought I was paranoid!

  103. @Almost Missouri
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    I don't know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn't going to change anyone's vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    Will the ruling make one side turn out in greater numbers than would have otherwise? Hard to see how since every election is now "the most important election in history" for a scrolling list of reasons. But more so because the blue margin of victory is now synthetically manufactured, so turnout is moot.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Dutch Boy, @Mr. Anon

    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    But it might change where they cast their vote. A lot or traditionally conservative states, in the Southeast for example, are seeing a big influx of people moving in from liberal states like California. And the newcomers were starting to support the same things in their new homes that befouled the places they left. This might tend to arrest that trend. Places like Texas and Alabama are going to suddenly seem intolerable to those liberal Karens who are so wound up about the abortion issue. Maybe the ones who haven’t gone there yet won’t go. Maybe some of the ones who are there already will leave.

    We could see a real polarization of the electorate over these issues, making the Red states redder and the Blue states bluer. As for the Blue states – whatever – they can have an abortion clinic in every Starbucks for all I care – get an abortion with your latte. But for the Red states, it might make it a lot less likely that they will have Drag Queen Story Hour and Reparations.

  104. @John Johnson
    @Almost Missouri

    I don’t know how big an issue abortion is for how many voters, but I do think that this abortion ruling isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. The same people were going to vote red or vote blue before the ruling as after it.

    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard in an effort to get a large enough majority to legalize it at the Federal level. Will it work? Probably not. This is going to be a long hot summer. Riots, blackouts, water shortages. Better be ready if you live in SoCal.

    I think independents will ultimately punish Democrats over inflation and crime.

    The media of course will do everything they can to convince urban voters that they aren't actually seeing an increase in crime by men or man like men in mannish hoodies.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard

    I dunno, man, every time I accidentally encounter the Mainstream Media they are already full libtard, if not about abortion, then about guns, trannies, Trump, January 6th, the Ukraine, Covid, or whatever the Current Thing is. Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?

    24/7 full libtard is what they do. It’s who they are.

    The world as it stands today is already the world with full-spectrum full-libtard media.

    Better be ready if you live in SoCal.

    I don’t, but I do have family there. Not much I can do for them though, I fear.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Almost Missouri


    Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?
     
    14, but maybe even 21.

    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden's plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician's speech), from 30-something years ago. It's amazing!

    What's amazing was just seeing these people not be completely one-sided. I know I should remember this, as I watched the news back then. I wouldn't be surprised if goolag/youtube banned video clips of old newscasts due to this. People can't imagine that journalists could have ever been anything but an arm of the ctrl-left anymore. They'd like to keep it this way.

    Replies: @Gordo

  105. Anonymous[954] • Disclaimer says:

    And in Los Angeles tonight, heeeeeere come the beta males trying to impress the slutty gals who have friend-zoned them!

    • Replies: @Carol
    @Anonymous

    Hey, it's a serious problem when you can't tell the gf "get an abortion, it's legal...".

    It's 18+ years of child support at the very least.

  106. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Realistic questions:
    -- Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    -- Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother's life is threatened).

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @epebble

    The “right” to abort isn’t established. You’re presenting a false premise. You also don’t understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus’ right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It’s pretty simple actually.

    The Constitution doesn’t prohibit or protect the act of abortion. Roe v Wade took away the states’ right to make the determination. That is why it is bad. The overturning of R v. W merely puts the decision to outlaw abortion or not back into the hands of the states.

    • Agree: Ron Mexico, JR Ewing
    • Thanks: JimDandy, Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Mike Tre

    Thank you. I am not American. So was the US Constitution written with clear conscience of natural law? And, if right to life is the first stated principle in it, how can any state legislate for abortion without breaking with the Constitution? Augustine’s adage “in the essential, unity; in the non-essential, tolerance” is legal common sense.

    An extra question, is private property (the fourth principle of liberalism) enshrined directly in the Constitution or considered part of liberty/happiness?

    , @Prester John
    @Mike Tre

    "...the act itself is not a right."

    The "act itself"--is infanticide.

    Which goes under another name: murder.

    (Don't tell that to the progs though. It would be hurtful to them and might well constitute a microaggression).

    Replies: @jb

    , @Dmon
    @Mike Tre

    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn't prohibit it. Well, I just checked the constitution, and it doesn't prohibit murder either.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Zero Philosopher
    @Mike Tre

    "The “right” to abort isn’t established. You’re presenting a false premise. You also don’t understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus’ right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It’s pretty simple actually."

    No, it is you who don't unnderstand what a natural right is. A woman's right to her own body supercedes the "right" of an unborn fetus. Listen to what you are saying, that the fetus has the "right" to feed off the woman's body and live inside her. for 9 months against her will. This is outrageous.

  107. @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Those questions are not germane to the Roe Vs. Wade discussion. The 14th Amendment does not give women the right to get an abortion. The matter has been appropriately sent to the states.

    Replies: @The Real World

    So, in other words, the last 8 or 9 words of your prior comment are irrelevant. As in, not germane. Got that cleared up.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    I can't improve on Mike Tre's response to you.

    Replies: @The Real World

  108. @R.G. Camara
    @The Wild Geese Howard


    However, given the attitude of the DOJ, it is possible one or more of the creeps manages to do the unthinkable and create a scenario where the current WH has the opportunity to replace one or more Justices.

    What then?

     

    This post glows.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Reg Cæsar

    This post glows.

  109. @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    At common law, abortion was not "baby killing" until the "quickening" when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks. Most countries allow abortion up until around 12 weeks. I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother. Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law, which allows abortion up until 15 weeks because this gives responsible women plenty of time to know that they are pregnant and get an abortion.

    However, this doesn't account for IRRESPONSIBLE women. Women who are junkies and who are so befuddled that they can't get their shit together to have an abortion before week 15 or 20. While in the abstract human life should be valued, no good things are waiting for these fetuses. At best they are going to be burdens to society. At worst they are going to be life takers. So the reality is that these are exactly the abortions that should be allowed, at least up to the Roe limit of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb so it is fair to call it a baby and morally right to prohibit baby killing. But before that, the fetus is not quite a baby - it is more than nothing but less than a full human being.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don't agree with. A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby. But reasonable people can differ on this - this is why we have (50 state) legislatures, to do precisely this kind of line drawing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Twinkie, @Mike Tre

    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.

    Modern science, bro. Having sex with a 12 year old girls used to be legal under common law too, because people thought they could consent. Now we know the brain doesn’t mature until much later.

    IRRESPONSIBLE women

    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life. I’m afraid we don’t do wholesale condemnation of, and punishment-by-death for, pre-crimes just yet.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing

    Didn’t realize the pre-Roe South was such a hotbed of “extreme Catholicism.”

    that most countries don’t agree with.

    Most countries don’t agree with our Second Amendment either. So what?

    A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby.

    First of all, conflating a conceived baby with an egg is disingenuous and deceitful. Second, human life begins at conception.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
    • Replies: @The Real World
    @Twinkie


    ...human life begins at conception.
     
    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ....how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can't be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @That Would Be Telling

    , @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Twinkie


    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life.
     
    That would mean keeping a country White.
    , @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    What isn't discussed is the issue of abortion, at least in the United States, is a symptom of a bigger problem.

  110. Far be it for me to claim that Trump is 100 percent sincere in what he says, but we are literally talking about the guy who when asked if he supported Roe being overturned during the second 2016 Presidential Debate straight up said yes and that he was only appointing justices who would rule against Roe.

  111. Reading the comments here, and listening to long time Twitter friends, I’d add that the shift in the court exposes the deep divisions between people in the country.

    Liberals have suddenly realized that they can’t trust the court to vote their biases. And Trump’s election will haunt them for a lifetime.

    I have ordinarily sane liberal friends who now believe that a conservative religious take-over is imminent. Nonsensical references to the democrat fantasy of a January 6th are very triggering to these people; the media is playing with fire. Desperate people accede to desperate measures.

  112. @JimDandy
    @Reg Cæsar

    The bullshit loophole stems from the 7-2 Roe vs. Wade decision wherein the court rather arbitrarily wrote laws based on trimesters. Post-viable abortions were made illegal except in cases where the mother's life or "health" was in danger. So, when a pregnant woman says she's depressed her mental "health" is in danger, and, thus, a baby who could have lived outside of the womb is legally slaughtered. The reflexive airhead liberal response when you point this out is, "THAT'S NOT A THING! THAT NEVER HAPPENS!" It happens. It should be classified as murder. And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.

    Replies: @The Real World

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions and trying to make a substantive case about them. Seriously, you miss the forest for the trees.

    And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.

    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her? He, who has the easiest, time-tested for eons and 100% accessible method for preventing an unwanted pregnancy but, couldn’t be bothered or responsible enough to utilize it. What should his penance be?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions

    Ugh. That's what you call the legal slaughter of babies? I'm always shocked when I'm reminded that people like you really exist.

    Replies: @The Real World

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her?
     
    https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/06/shotgun_wedding.jpg
  113. @Reg Cæsar
    @aNewBanner


    ...and didn’t take seriously the slippery slope tendency of modernity.
     
    Same-sex "matrimony" is at the bottom of the slope, not the top. Perhaps elective abortion should be viewed the same way.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Same-sex “matrimony” is at the bottom of the slope, not the top.

    Oh, no. With these crazy leftists, there is no bottom. There is always another level of descent.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  114. @SaneClownPosse
    @Almost Missouri

    There were slaves above the Mason-Dixon Line until after the War of Northern Aggression ended.

    Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Nothing at all to do with Juneteenth, which could be said to be a racist construct.) only freed slaves in the States doing business as the Confederate States of America.

    The freeing of the slaves was an act intended to destabilize the South, as an economic weapon of mass destruction. Lincoln wasn't thinking at all about the well being of Porgy and Bess.

    The Confederacy was a return to the original Articles of Confederation, which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in. Where Basic Rights were an after thought as Amendments to the Constitution.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Curle

    “ which were overthrown by the Constitution, which laid the highway to the Federal Hell that we live in.”

    The constitution didn’t do it. Folks like Hamilton, Story and Marshall played their part, but ultimately it was the war /debt financing knowledge developed during the Napoleonic wars combined with the industrialization of weapons production , northern population growth, available mercenaries and this information being put at the disposal of the smart but ruthless gang supporting Lincoln, a group who saw their big chance to become perma-millionaires by using federal money to get rich through public improvement schemes. The piece of paper you call the constitution was no match for these fellows.

  115. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    Someone should check to make sure he’s not having a stroke.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    I'm sure the bathhouse attendants are on it.

  116. @Russ
    @AKAHorace


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, in
     
    A day before the abortion decision, we had "conservative" stalwarts such as John Cornyn and Lyndsey Graham and a dozen or so other Mitch McConnell pubic lice in the Senate undermine the 2nd-Amendment protections of their supporters for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine. Install McConnell as Majority Leader in November? No, and neither Cole Steyn nor abortion had one damned thing to do with it.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

    …for those Red Flag laws empowering every crazy bitch from Portland Oregon to Portland Maine.

    They also empower whites to keep guns away from blacks. In theory, anyway.

    This would be their most popular aspect, even here. (Especially here?) Funny they aren’t marketing them this way.

    Do you think Sheriff Butler should have given that license to Rev MLK? Butler’s judgment is honored in Montgomery to this day:

    New jail to be named in honor of former sheriff

  117. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats.

    Nope.

    I want this election to be all about the disaster that 50 years of middle man ideology–let’s have China build everything, print money to cover the difference and take our slice as the money goes by–has wrought and the parasite party making it worse for Americans with open borders.

    Trump is probably right about the politics–bad for Republicans by distracting from that.

    But by the fall, this will be old news, and people will have figured out that the Supreme Court didn’t decide anything about abortion but kicked it back to the people. In fact, the idea that there is this thing called “self-government” may actually sink in and strike people as a good idea. In the end the election will be about the economic situation that “put parasitism first!” has created.

    Ongoing though this ruling does create more stress in the Republican coalition as some social conservatives will expect action on abortion. Republican state legislators are the ones who will be under some pressure.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @AnotherDad

    Joe Biden just sent this email:


    Today, the Supreme Court expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people. They didn't limit it, they simply took it away…

    Now, with Roe gone, the health and lives of women in this nation are at risk.

    Let me be very clear and unambiguous. The only way we can secure the right to choose is for Congress to restore Roe v. Wade as federal law.

    This November, we must elect more senators and representatives who will fight back. We need to elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.
     

    Replies: @epebble, @AnotherDad

    , @Curle
    @AnotherDad

    But think of the long term effects of more grandchildren keeping 40s-60s aged women busy with something other than their childless friend’s liberal causes? Pussyhats will be marginalized. And that’s a good thing.

  118. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Modern science, bro. Having sex with a 12 year old girls used to be legal under common law too, because people thought they could consent. Now we know the brain doesn’t mature until much later.

    IRRESPONSIBLE women
     
    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life. I’m afraid we don’t do wholesale condemnation of, and punishment-by-death for, pre-crimes just yet.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing
     
    Didn’t realize the pre-Roe South was such a hotbed of “extreme Catholicism.”

    that most countries don’t agree with.
     
    Most countries don’t agree with our Second Amendment either. So what?

    A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby.
     
    First of all, conflating a conceived baby with an egg is disingenuous and deceitful. Second, human life begins at conception.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre

    …human life begins at conception.

    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ….how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can’t be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs.

    When a BABY can live outside the womb, every single non-retarded person alive knows damned well it's a human life.

    Replies: @Jack D, @The Real World

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    Fer🛐sakes, it is not known when conception occurs.
     
    It is easily known when responsibility occurs: with the act that led to the unpinpointable moment of conception.

    This is well-understood about the man's role. However, it only applies to adults. Therefore, there is disagreement about the woman's.

    We all know that men can’t be counted on to be responsible in that regard...
     
    Responsible men can be. They're not as popular as they used to be, though. Unless it's in places like India, where the parents still choose.

    ...and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.
     
    Free love has a lot to do with why it's falling apart.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @The Real World


    That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.
     
    No, that's not why. They estimate it from what they see because they don't want to go asking the woman exactly when she had sex over the last few weeks. Conception happened one of those times.

    Replies: @The Real World

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @The Real World

    Reagan had a good analogy for dealing with the threshold of conception or any other regarding abortion: "If you're walking down the street and see a paper bag that might contain something alive, would you kick it?"

    Replies: @The Real World

  119. Anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    I spent half an hour browsing through Wikipedia’s many articles on abortion law country by country for European countries and others. Generally, first trimester it’s OK, second trimester requires a legitimate health issue or a major birth defect. Weeklong waiting periods are very common and in Germany you have to attend three counseling sessions before you get the Willy Wonka abortion golden ticket. Canada at first seems really wide open, but it changes when you look at the details. It’s very federalized and it depends on the province. And there seem to be practical difficulties in getting appointments. And the overall abortion rate is very low compared to the United States.

    Gallup polling has shown over many decades that support for some form of abortion stands at about 50% and that support for zero abortion and or on demand abortion are very low, so it seems like most state legislatures are in the end, if they want to get reelected, going to probably end up somewhere where we were with Roe.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Anon

    I think those laws are for surgical abortions. With more than half of modern abortions done with pills (mifepristone), it is hard to impose much regulation. Who will police a Teladoc in California sending a prescription to a patient in Oklahoma?


    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/24/misoprostol-mifepristone-what-abortion-pill/7725111001/

  120. @Anon
    Pathetic to see the "this is a victory for the dems" fools on this board.

    The premier leftist legislative symbol was just rescinded, and because people are going to I burn and riot over that, you think it is a loss.

    This is what an actual victory looks like.

    Replies: @Curle

    Agree. I hope the winners can capitalize on this to drive down the value of Lefty ‘Right Side of History’ shares.

  121. @AnotherDad
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats.
     
    Nope.

    I want this election to be all about the disaster that 50 years of middle man ideology--let's have China build everything, print money to cover the difference and take our slice as the money goes by--has wrought and the parasite party making it worse for Americans with open borders.

    Trump is probably right about the politics--bad for Republicans by distracting from that.

    But by the fall, this will be old news, and people will have figured out that the Supreme Court didn't decide anything about abortion but kicked it back to the people. In fact, the idea that there is this thing called "self-government" may actually sink in and strike people as a good idea. In the end the election will be about the economic situation that "put parasitism first!" has created.

    Ongoing though this ruling does create more stress in the Republican coalition as some social conservatives will expect action on abortion. Republican state legislators are the ones who will be under some pressure.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Curle

    Joe Biden just sent this email:

    Today, the Supreme Court expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people. They didn’t limit it, they simply took it away…

    Now, with Roe gone, the health and lives of women in this nation are at risk.

    Let me be very clear and unambiguous. The only way we can secure the right to choose is for Congress to restore Roe v. Wade as federal law.

    This November, we must elect more senators and representatives who will fight back. We need to elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Anon7

    That is the way of a good democracy, not crying at the court steps. If they believe so strongly in their cause, they should be able to flip a few percent of women voters and get a few seats to pass legislation. Women make majority of voters, even a 5% boost will work wonders.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anon7

    Anon7 -- no argument.

    Of course, Biden is saying that--anything to distract from his record--and the Parasite Party will try and run on that.

    I'm just saying, that while i think this does work against Republicans by providing this distraction, it is not going to work. The Supreme Court did not "outlaw abortion". It put it back where it was before 1973--a ho-hum state law issue. And by the fall, most everyone who is actually "up for grabs" politically will understand that.

    In contrast, the Parasite Party's "let's print more money for more parasites!" extravaganza while slapping down energy production--treating all actual productive activity with contempt--offers the prospect of roaring inflation and recession. Not a winner.

    Replies: @Anon7

  122. @AnotherDad
    @Anon7


    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats.
     
    Nope.

    I want this election to be all about the disaster that 50 years of middle man ideology--let's have China build everything, print money to cover the difference and take our slice as the money goes by--has wrought and the parasite party making it worse for Americans with open borders.

    Trump is probably right about the politics--bad for Republicans by distracting from that.

    But by the fall, this will be old news, and people will have figured out that the Supreme Court didn't decide anything about abortion but kicked it back to the people. In fact, the idea that there is this thing called "self-government" may actually sink in and strike people as a good idea. In the end the election will be about the economic situation that "put parasitism first!" has created.

    Ongoing though this ruling does create more stress in the Republican coalition as some social conservatives will expect action on abortion. Republican state legislators are the ones who will be under some pressure.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Curle

    But think of the long term effects of more grandchildren keeping 40s-60s aged women busy with something other than their childless friend’s liberal causes? Pussyhats will be marginalized. And that’s a good thing.

  123. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians.

    Hell, what suits downstate New Yorkers doesn’t even suit upstate New Yorkers. It may suit northern Virginians, though.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore. NYC and the Adirondacks are like two different worlds. Virginia was split into 2 states. Maybe if NY was split you could get 2 more Republican senators from upstate.

    It's very common around the country to have blue cities in red states - these sometimes tip the states blue due to the large population of the cities (and maybe a little urban vote fraud). Again, maybe it's time to have city-states that are separate from the rest of their state because they don't have a lot in common anymore.

    A lot of people here seem to be in favor of a national divorce. I think that would be disastrous. But I'm not against having separate bedrooms under the same roof. This would also entail Washington not forcing choices on either the red or the blue states depending on who controlled Congress and the White House that week.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Reg Cæsar

  124. @JimDandy
    it needs a fair amount of federalism.


    Agreed. American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy. The constitution clearly gives people the right to bear arms, and does not give people the right to an abortion.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre, @pyrrhus

    American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy.

    The last time that thinking was relevant was 30 years ago.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Actually, the last time that thinking was relevant was this morning.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

  125. @Mr. Anon
    @Redneck farmer


    @michael droy

    There’s a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.
     

    Aye. And - to Mr. Droy - take your rotten royal family with you.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Take back
    Jonathan Mason!
    Give ’em all
    some place to go…

    You’re jammin’ me.
    You’re jammin’ me…

    And, thank you, Redneck Farmer. They didn’t understand then, and nearly 250 years later, they still don’t. Exhibit A: Jonathan Mason.

    • LOL: Gary in Gramercy
  126. It’s great to read some Constitutionalism on here, even from our host! Thanks for all the great comments.

    The huge political divide doesn’t go along State lines really, not even by county often, but Federalism has always been part of the solution. We need more people like Ron DeSantis who understands that he has every right to tell Joe Biden to “go fuck himself”. That’s what it’s going to be about.

    • Thanks: Russ
  127. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions and trying to make a substantive case about them. Seriously, you miss the forest for the trees.


    And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.
     
    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her? He, who has the easiest, time-tested for eons and 100% accessible method for preventing an unwanted pregnancy but, couldn't be bothered or responsible enough to utilize it. What should his penance be?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions

    Ugh. That’s what you call the legal slaughter of babies? I’m always shocked when I’m reminded that people like you really exist.

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Ugh. That deflection was a fail.

    If you're so convinced that large numbers of abortions occur in the later weeks of pregnancy because the mother is "depressed"...then produce the statistics proving it.

    Otherwise, you're simply making shit up and expect to be taken seriously. Another fail.

    You also didn't answer the question posed. More avoidance?

    Replies: @JimDandy

  128. @The Real World
    @Twinkie


    ...human life begins at conception.
     
    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ....how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can't be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @That Would Be Telling

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs.

    When a BABY can live outside the womb, every single non-retarded person alive knows damned well it’s a human life.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    Agreed, but that is somewhere around 24 weeks. Twinkie is arguing for 0 weeks. That seems extreme to me, not to mention impractical given modern technology such as morning after pill. Even contraceptive pills would be illegal under Twinkie's extreme view since they work by preventing the fertilized egg from emulating in the womb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy

    , @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Were you drunk last night, Jim?

    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.

    It is simply nuts how uniformed people are about basic reproduction and how emotionally crazy they get about the topic and their own ignorance of it! That issue can be solved but, most don't care to learn the facts and prefer their made-up ideas about it.

    Houston? Big problem....

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JimDandy

  129. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy


    American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy.
     
    The last time that thinking was relevant was 30 years ago.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Actually, the last time that thinking was relevant was this morning.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy

    Demography trumps pieces of paper.

    Replies: @Louis Renault, @JimDandy

  130. @mc23
    If the US was willing to settle on European restrictions they could probably pass a law at the Federal level. Ironically the Mississippi law leading to the latest ruling is more liberal for abortions then most of Europe.

    Here in the US it has to be full term abortions or nothing.

    Maybe our ruling class isn't the worst but it's not for lack of trying.

    https://twitter.com/saluwe/status/1540402451337076739?s=20&t=d-rphtkCNdBjwXWsVGstJQ

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @kahein

    this is so fucking stupid. medical support for abortion there is universally and easily accessible and free. it’s a routine medical procedure and treated as such. not like here where all pro-christian-deathcult state have already installed a gauntlet of legal and logistical obstacles

    do you all of you just fucking lie like you breathe

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @kahein

    ... you have yet to post a serious comment but I'm guessing you didn't see the map?

  131. @Anon7
    @AnotherDad

    Joe Biden just sent this email:


    Today, the Supreme Court expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people. They didn't limit it, they simply took it away…

    Now, with Roe gone, the health and lives of women in this nation are at risk.

    Let me be very clear and unambiguous. The only way we can secure the right to choose is for Congress to restore Roe v. Wade as federal law.

    This November, we must elect more senators and representatives who will fight back. We need to elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.
     

    Replies: @epebble, @AnotherDad

    That is the way of a good democracy, not crying at the court steps. If they believe so strongly in their cause, they should be able to flip a few percent of women voters and get a few seats to pass legislation. Women make majority of voters, even a 5% boost will work wonders.

  132. @The Real World
    @Twinkie


    ...human life begins at conception.
     
    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ....how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can't be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @That Would Be Telling

    Fer🛐sakes, it is not known when conception occurs.

    It is easily known when responsibility occurs: with the act that led to the unpinpointable moment of conception.

    This is well-understood about the man’s role. However, it only applies to adults. Therefore, there is disagreement about the woman’s.

    We all know that men can’t be counted on to be responsible in that regard…

    Responsible men can be. They’re not as popular as they used to be, though. Unless it’s in places like India, where the parents still choose.

    …and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Free love has a lot to do with why it’s falling apart.

  133. @Rooster16
    @Anon7

    Uniparty…

    I thought the same as you, interesting that in a year where the Republicans would wipe the floor with Democrats, that a rallying point would be created to level the playing field. In addition to lighting a fire under their base, it’ll be used as a pretense to “win at all costs” much like 2020; it’s ok to cheat because the other side is literally Darth Vader!! You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    To your point on Trump, I’ve already seen numerous people saying this ruling is all because of him, even though he’s been pretty mute on the whole subject. The Dems will ratchet up their propaganda arm (entire MSM) and by the time the midterms roll around, their base will be foaming at the mouth over a single issue.

    It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Anon7, @Rosie

    “ It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.”

    Ever heard of “kayfabe”? It’s the unwritten code of wrestling: every single person involved knows that it’s fake, and every single person involved swears that wrestling is real, unscripted fighting. Even so-called reveals … are part of the kayfabe!

  134. • LOL: Russ
  135. @Almost Missouri
    @John Johnson


    What will happen though is that the media will go full libtard
     
    I dunno, man, every time I accidentally encounter the Mainstream Media they are already full libtard, if not about abortion, then about guns, trannies, Trump, January 6th, the Ukraine, Covid, or whatever the Current Thing is. Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?

    24/7 full libtard is what they do. It's who they are.

    The world as it stands today is already the world with full-spectrum full-libtard media.

    Better be ready if you live in SoCal.
     
    I don't, but I do have family there. Not much I can do for them though, I fear.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?

    14, but maybe even 21.

    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden’s plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician’s speech), from 30-something years ago. It’s amazing!

    What’s amazing was just seeing these people not be completely one-sided. I know I should remember this, as I watched the news back then. I wouldn’t be surprised if goolag/youtube banned video clips of old newscasts due to this. People can’t imagine that journalists could have ever been anything but an arm of the ctrl-left anymore. They’d like to keep it this way.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Achmed E. Newman


    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden’s plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician’s speech), from 30-something years ago. It’s amazing!
     
    Welsh, Neil Kinnock was the “Welsh Windbag”.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  136. @Anon
    I spent half an hour browsing through Wikipedia’s many articles on abortion law country by country for European countries and others. Generally, first trimester it’s OK, second trimester requires a legitimate health issue or a major birth defect. Weeklong waiting periods are very common and in Germany you have to attend three counseling sessions before you get the Willy Wonka abortion golden ticket. Canada at first seems really wide open, but it changes when you look at the details. It’s very federalized and it depends on the province. And there seem to be practical difficulties in getting appointments. And the overall abortion rate is very low compared to the United States.

    Gallup polling has shown over many decades that support for some form of abortion stands at about 50% and that support for zero abortion and or on demand abortion are very low, so it seems like most state legislatures are in the end, if they want to get reelected, going to probably end up somewhere where we were with Roe.

    Replies: @epebble

    I think those laws are for surgical abortions. With more than half of modern abortions done with pills (mifepristone), it is hard to impose much regulation. Who will police a Teladoc in California sending a prescription to a patient in Oklahoma?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/24/misoprostol-mifepristone-what-abortion-pill/7725111001/

  137. Late to this thread after a long day……

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Some exuberant RWers online have basically been saying that it means “constitutional carry” is now the law of the land, but I doubt that.

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Corn

    The issue at hand is whether states can have a “may issue” (ie discretionary) concealed weapons regime or if they are obligated to have “shall issue” policy that gives a permit to all qualified applicants who ask for one. They can still put conditions on who is eligible and how to get one, but once those conditions are met, they can no longer deny a license for discretionary reasons (ie “tell us why you think you need it and we’ll see if we agree, but we probably don’t unless you are rich or famous”).

    What is not immediately clear to me is if states can completely ban legal concealed carry by private citizens altogether or if concealed carry itself is now required to be allowed everywhere, with local licensing requirements and conditions. My guess is the latter based on what I have read so far, but I haven’t seen that specific question asked.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    , @John Johnson
    @Corn

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can't deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.

    It does not mean Federal constitutional carry as even some liberal media outlets assume.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Corn


    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    [...]

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?
     

    For New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen which it looks like we might start calling Bruen, the first thing to note is that unless you live in New York, and maybe not even then, it's simply not worth paying attention to unless and until we discover if the Supreme Court is going to play Lucy and the football for another dozen years like they did after MacDonald.

    A decision that's not enforced is entirely worthless when it comes to the facts on the ground, and unlike abortion or First Amendment cases this is very much a topic the Supreme Court as a whole doesn't want to deal with, full stop. If this decision was a one time gift to Thomas who was getting increasingly scathing about that twelve years when the lower courts ran free and all the relevant ones except for Illinois always sided with state governments....

    But if you want a reading now, the best TL;DR I've found so far is Eugene Volokh's.

    Replies: @Jack D

  138. The European Union (27 countries in Europe excluding United Kingdom, Switzerland and some eastern European countries) have merged their sovereignity over the last two decades and eliminated trading/regulation/migration borders to mimic the “United States” of America. The EU has a European Court of Justice to mimic SCOTUS but it is less powerful that SCOTUS. Perhaps the US will return the favor and start to mimic the EU. The ECJ is becoming more interventionist and SCOTUS less, so the two standards of intervention in “States’ rights” could meet in the middle.

  139. @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Almost Missouri, @ginger bread man, @AKAHorace, @Art Deco

    Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.

    Where can I read more about this abortion being a Jewish sacrament? I would like to know more about why this is.

    See this relevant clip:

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @ginger bread man

    I see Judaism has the slutty bimbo seal of approval.

    , @Dutch Boy
    @ginger bread man

    https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/the-jewish-revolutionary-spirit

  140. @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    Don’t get me started on the US voting system.

    Our Electoral College chooses a chief executive the same way Parliament does. Then dissolves. What’s not to like?

    So in Britain we have no constitution at all…

    Yes, you do. Just not in one place. Again, like our Electoral College.

  141. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    So, in other words, the last 8 or 9 words of your prior comment are irrelevant. As in, not germane. Got that cleared up.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    I can’t improve on Mike Tre’s response to you.

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    My prior comment was in error.
    After it posted I realized it didn't jive.
    Twas too late to edit it. Carry on...

  142. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions and trying to make a substantive case about them. Seriously, you miss the forest for the trees.


    And all parties involved should be punished accordingly.
     
    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her? He, who has the easiest, time-tested for eons and 100% accessible method for preventing an unwanted pregnancy but, couldn't be bothered or responsible enough to utilize it. What should his penance be?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar

    Therefore, what do you consider appropriate punishment for the guy that carelessly impregnated her?

    • LOL: AnotherDad
  143. @Batman
    As a reminder, anytime a politician says that a gun rights ruling or law will increase inner city violence, that politician is saying blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Peter Akuleyev

    They say the same thing regarding limits on abortion. Biden “himself” publicly stated in a press release that “abortion control” hurts poor people of color the most.

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Kronos

    It's actually a pretty common argument and basically the only one they have:

    "Women have no agency and can't help but fuck like rabbits. Why do we want to punish them for that?"

    To some degree, I think the "women of color" variation is at least a little bit honest, if at odds with their other stated beliefs.

  144. @ginger bread man
    @Joe S.Walker

    Look up “Gaylor Swift” on Tumblr and Reddit. Figuring out which men Taylor actually dated, which were just for promotional purposes, and which female friends she hooked up with is the leftist gen Z version of who Killed the Kennedies.

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker

    I suspect one reason she doesn’t come out is that if she wrote songs griping and pissing about her old girlfriends it’d be a crime against wokeness.

    • Thanks: Curle
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Joe S.Walker

    I think that's what the song Bad Blood is about.

    https://youtu.be/QcIy9NiNbmo

  145. @S. Anonyia
    @Reg Cæsar

    Viability is logical. After all, living people with heart beats (including young people, considering they have the best organs) often quickly have their organs harvested after a neurologist declares them “brain dead” in the hospital. The criteria for brain death is somewhat questionable and some critically ill people, especially those with strokes or TBIs, can make surprising recoveries given time. If society is okay with organ donation they should be fine with the abortions of fetuses that aren’t yet viable (like with allegedly brain dead people, the fetus has limited consciousness).

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe. Let abortion be legal in the first trimester and then make exceptions for rape/incest/genetic defects/health of the mother after that.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Real World, @Almost Missouri

    “Brain death” is very different from normal pregnancy. Let the latter proceed, and viability occurs. There is no legitimate reason to stop it. Not if we’re talking about adults.

  146. @JimDandy
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Actually, the last time that thinking was relevant was this morning.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Demography trumps pieces of paper.

    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Black Americans are in a lot of trouble then.

    , @JimDandy
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the increase in Mexican-Americans already cemented our fate of sinking into idiocracy?

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  147. @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed – BY Parliament.

    No.

    The British people have a consistent majority decade after decade in favour of the death penalty, the globalist in parliament don’t and won’t, they live in their metropolitan bubble.

    Oh and the current invasion of an army of young violent black and brown men?

    • Agree: West reanimator
  148. History has proven that the amount of Federalism will never remain at a “fair amount” or any amount that is reasonable. Wokeism, Antifa, the SARS-2 fiasco, blunders in Ukraine all demonstrate the inevitable progression to extreme central control and the dysfunction of a mega-bureaucracy. Keeping together the country founded in April, 1865 is a mistake.

  149. I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters. Please help me understand how far this court may go.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?

    How are these and other rights different than (what was) a Federal right to abortion? Issues like these are never left to states to decide.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Hallie Scott Kline


    I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters.
     
    The fact that you are aware of your own ignorance means you are a savvier citizen than the various loudmouths commenting here about how great it is that the various governments will now have more power to control our lives.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?
     
    From what I understand about the opinion I haven’t yet mustered the courage to read, no.

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.
     
    No. Explicit Amendments to the Constitution, the 19th included, are safe.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?
     
    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.

    What is very much at stake is parental Rights, which have no explicit constitutional protection. Rights like
    visitation for noncustodial, and even unfit parents,
    the right to send your child to a private school, or none at all,
    the right to not be forced to have an abortion if the state decides that your child shouldn't be born,
    the right to have as many children as you want or none at all
    The right to teach your child to be proud of their racial heritage, even if they're White without fear that the state will take them away from you because you're "racist."
    The right to buy condoms.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    , @Hibernian
    @Hallie Scott Kline


    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.
     
    Women's suffrage was added to the Constitution, explicitly, by Amendment, right after WW1. The Bill of Rights is the name for the first 10 Amendments. So the rights in the Bill of Rights and women's suffrage are on the sme plane and equally legitimate.
  150. Now that the Ninth Amendment is a dead letter, look for the establishment to start coming after homeschoolers.

  151. @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs.

    When a BABY can live outside the womb, every single non-retarded person alive knows damned well it's a human life.

    Replies: @Jack D, @The Real World

    Agreed, but that is somewhere around 24 weeks. Twinkie is arguing for 0 weeks. That seems extreme to me, not to mention impractical given modern technology such as morning after pill. Even contraceptive pills would be illegal under Twinkie’s extreme view since they work by preventing the fertilized egg from emulating in the womb.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jack D

    Autocorrect strikes again. Emplanting not emulating.

    , @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    Yeah, I was butting in to point out that at some point there is absolutely no denying that it's a life. And, on that note, in fact, "Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is "viable," or able to survive outside the womb." Might seem like splitting hairs, but, again, it's a life.

    Replies: @Jack D

  152. @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    Agreed, but that is somewhere around 24 weeks. Twinkie is arguing for 0 weeks. That seems extreme to me, not to mention impractical given modern technology such as morning after pill. Even contraceptive pills would be illegal under Twinkie's extreme view since they work by preventing the fertilized egg from emulating in the womb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy

    Autocorrect strikes again. Emplanting not emulating.

  153. Assuming this is accepted (Which is a big if) and the issue of restoring Roe through court repacking doesn’t become an animating issue, could this also free the Republican party from evangelical influence?

    Using the abortion issue as a kite to summon those voters was very lucrative but over time warped the party due to a focus and influence on that constituency.

    Could being rid of that dynamic allow it to change and better embrace the new political realignment that is struggling to be born?

    Again, not very likely as either a federal right to abortions will be enshrined through legislation or it will become the political football it was before just the other way around. Though maybe it will take the air out of a Pro-Life groups and evangelicals all the same?

  154. @Rooster16
    @Anon7

    Uniparty…

    I thought the same as you, interesting that in a year where the Republicans would wipe the floor with Democrats, that a rallying point would be created to level the playing field. In addition to lighting a fire under their base, it’ll be used as a pretense to “win at all costs” much like 2020; it’s ok to cheat because the other side is literally Darth Vader!! You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    To your point on Trump, I’ve already seen numerous people saying this ruling is all because of him, even though he’s been pretty mute on the whole subject. The Dems will ratchet up their propaganda arm (entire MSM) and by the time the midterms roll around, their base will be foaming at the mouth over a single issue.

    It’s almost like those in the highest positions are all on the same side… WWE is more believable at this point than our “government”.

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Anon7, @Rosie

    You also have Clarence Thomas giving the left ammo for years to come by speaking about overturning other rulings, that actually have no chance of being overturned… can I throw a flag on him for excessive taunting???

    WTF do you mean they have “no chance” of being overturned?

    They have effectively already been overturned. If the only rights we have are the ones that are spelled out in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional right to either same-sex marriage or contraception.

    Of course, contraception isn’t going to be banned because it’s not controversial like abortion is, and gay marriage is probably safe because of the media, but countercultural Christians who homeschool their kids are going to be in the cross hairs. We don’t have the media access and clout to protect ourselves.

    • Replies: @Redman
    @Rosie

    I don’t see any constituency getting that riled up over banning homeschooling. Some might not care for it, but how do you envision it being banned completely?

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  155. Anonymous[954] • Disclaimer says:

    I laugh out loud at these ugly suburban white women trying to give their best impression of an aggrieved black while confronting the police, as shown below. It’s so racially condescending. Were I an urban black gal , I’d find her obnoxious enough to prompt her ass-whooping right then and there.

    Speaking of whom, a reduction of abortion services would most dramatically affect black people, yet they’re glaringly underrepresented, in relation to their urban population, in these baby-killing hootenannies. Just a lot of ugly, fat, white women and their friend-zoned uglier male cohorts.

    Seems like a leading indicator that this demonstration crap is gonna peter out, leaving the most psychotic actors floating about in small groups.

    • Replies: @LP5
    @Anonymous


    ...these ugly suburban white women...

     

    Expect marchers wearing pussy hats accessorized with coat hangers.
  156. Anonymous[288] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wade Hampton
    @Anon

    Imagine yourself your current age and then wind it back to before you were born. Just a minute before you were born. Imagine how it would feel to have your spine severed in utero. Think about that for a minute.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Life is so dreadful, so full of calamities and heartbreak that it would be better to have never been born.
    But who is so fortunate as that? Fewer than on in a hundred thousand.

    or maybe a few more, given widespread abortion.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous

    LOL--I always have that thought when listening to the old Brother Theodore bit.

  157. Remember the random brick pallets during the antifa peaceful riots?

    • Replies: @tyrone
    @J.Ross

    Well at least they put down some traffic cones, SAFTY FIRST!

  158. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    until you wrote the above monstrosity

    Yes, JackD’s heart is impure.

    But to dive even deeper into that quagmire: what would the progressive response be if someone proposed that the right to an abortion be preserved just for Blacks? To make up for past injustices etc…

    • Replies: @Nico
    @International Jew

    I would be happy for a corollary to States Rights whereupon blacks and Hispanics unhappy with the system’s treatment of brownpipo could elect to be subject to a black-and-brown-run state within a state. While I personally believe abortion to be evil in the abstract - a mother not caring for her offspring is an abhorrent thing - and worth outlawing in *my* society for this reason, there are certain abortions I don’t usually get worked up about (rapists’ and baby daddies’ spawn being among them).

  159. @kahein
    @mc23

    this is so fucking stupid. medical support for abortion there is universally and easily accessible and free. it's a routine medical procedure and treated as such. not like here where all pro-christian-deathcult state have already installed a gauntlet of legal and logistical obstacles

    do you all of you just fucking lie like you breathe

    Replies: @J.Ross

    … you have yet to post a serious comment but I’m guessing you didn’t see the map?

  160. @Hallie Scott Kline
    I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters. Please help me understand how far this court may go.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?

    How are these and other rights different than (what was) a Federal right to abortion? Issues like these are never left to states to decide.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Hibernian

    I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters.

    The fact that you are aware of your own ignorance means you are a savvier citizen than the various loudmouths commenting here about how great it is that the various governments will now have more power to control our lives.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?

    From what I understand about the opinion I haven’t yet mustered the courage to read, no.

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.

    No. Explicit Amendments to the Constitution, the 19th included, are safe.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?

    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.

    What is very much at stake is parental Rights, which have no explicit constitutional protection. Rights like
    visitation for noncustodial, and even unfit parents,
    the right to send your child to a private school, or none at all,
    the right to not be forced to have an abortion if the state decides that your child shouldn’t be born,
    the right to have as many children as you want or none at all
    The right to teach your child to be proud of their racial heritage, even if they’re White without fear that the state will take them away from you because you’re “racist.”
    The right to buy condoms.

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Rosie


    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.
     
    I'm not disagreeing with you on result of this, which was your point, but I do feel obliged to argue the matter itself that it's not at all clear that denying gay marriage violates equal protection.

    Before the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" were visited upon America, and even before some states took the plunge to allow gay marriage, gays have always had the same right as straights to get married. There was no "equal protection" argument to be made: everyone was prohibited equally from marrying someone of the same sex and everyone was allowed equally to marry anyone they chose of the opposite sex.

    Neither "homosexuality" nor "marriage" is mentioned in the constitution, and up until this lunacy became mainstream ~20 years ago, there were no state marriage laws that mentioned homosexuality. They simply said "one man and one woman" and they applied it to everyone, regardless of sexuality.

    But again, I agree with you that the mainstream take is that those laws still violated equal protection in some way and therefore gay marriage is a necessary outcome under the 15th amendment.

    Replies: @jb

  161. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Modern science, bro. Having sex with a 12 year old girls used to be legal under common law too, because people thought they could consent. Now we know the brain doesn’t mature until much later.

    IRRESPONSIBLE women
     
    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life. I’m afraid we don’t do wholesale condemnation of, and punishment-by-death for, pre-crimes just yet.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing
     
    Didn’t realize the pre-Roe South was such a hotbed of “extreme Catholicism.”

    that most countries don’t agree with.
     
    Most countries don’t agree with our Second Amendment either. So what?

    A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby.
     
    First of all, conflating a conceived baby with an egg is disingenuous and deceitful. Second, human life begins at conception.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre

    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life.

    That would mean keeping a country White.

  162. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    “ Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.”

    Fetuses smaller than a strawberry aren’t babies.

    “Baby killing” talk is weird fundie-feminine hysterics.

    What percentage of the population would jail a woman for life for taking an abortion pill at 8 weeks? 10% maybe?

    Justice Amy says: Black Babies are Most Precious, I Only wish I Could Adopt More!

  163. @S. Anonyia
    @Reg Cæsar

    Viability is logical. After all, living people with heart beats (including young people, considering they have the best organs) often quickly have their organs harvested after a neurologist declares them “brain dead” in the hospital. The criteria for brain death is somewhat questionable and some critically ill people, especially those with strokes or TBIs, can make surprising recoveries given time. If society is okay with organ donation they should be fine with the abortions of fetuses that aren’t yet viable (like with allegedly brain dead people, the fetus has limited consciousness).

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe. Let abortion be legal in the first trimester and then make exceptions for rape/incest/genetic defects/health of the mother after that.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Real World, @Almost Missouri

    YES, you have brought up something very important that I was largely unaware of about a year and half ago.

    A story: Early March 2021, a friend of mine hears from longtime friends that their 36 yr old daughter is seriously ill in the hospital. She was fine on Wed, Thurs she developed a bad headache and it got worse thru the day. By evening she was in horrible pain so they take her to the Emergency Room.

    She was diagnosed with two brain aneurysms, they put her under, repaired them, then put her in an induced coma. I don’t have all the details but, by Sunday the Docs are claiming she is “brain dead”. She had been on an organ donor list (BIG mistake, I’ve learned) plus her parents knew she was. So, the hospital organ donation people met with the parents and, somehow, in all their shock and exhaustion, they agreed to have her organs harvested!! Let me repeat, into hospital on Thurs night and by Sun the Docs are claiming she’s gone and the harvesters are making their pitch. Mon morning the parents agreed and let their daughter be carved without taking more time and doing more medical consults!

    I find that story to be absolutely horrifying and cannot possibly imagine that those parents haven’t deeply regretted their hasty, permanent decision. I started doing some online research and learned that, you’re correct, there are Doctors who dispute the very diagnosis of “brain dead” so, that’s a huge problem. I also learned that having declared yourself an organ donor on drivers license or a state list, etc. makes you a ready target in these types of situations. Her altruistic choice likely cost her her life.

    Separately, people are very bizarre in their uneven and hypocritical ideas about which lives matter and which don’t so much. We send thousands of living, breathing, young adults off to be slaughtered in wars for profit and conquest and people don’t get very bothered about that which is pretty sick. But, they think they have the right to impose control over a strangers pregnancy. Smh..

    • Thanks: S. Anonyia
  164. They have effectively already been overturned. If the only rights we have are the ones that are spelled out in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional right to either same-sex marriage or contraception

    It’s one of the few examples of otherwise shrill arguments from the left which has substance. The right to same sex marriage isn’t explicitly bestowed or denied by the US Constitution, the same with contraception. If the Federal government wants to accommodate same sex marriages and have them recognized federally, Congress can pass a law saying so. There’s a great many people who are tired of “rights” which were never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, decided by nine judges who legislate as a kings. The court was not meant to be a super legislator, but that’s what it has become. The last two decisions have reclaimed a small bit of the people’s right to govern themselves. That’s terrifying for the left.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Bernard

    You are constitutionally illiterate. The Ninth Amendment:


    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
     
    Sincerely,

    the Founding Fathers

    Replies: @Bernard

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Bernard


    The right to same sex marriage isn’t explicitly bestowed or denied by the US Constitution, the same with contraception.
     
    Banning contraception is definitely establishment of religion.

    Replies: @Random Anonymous, @Redman

  165. @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    I can't improve on Mike Tre's response to you.

    Replies: @The Real World

    My prior comment was in error.
    After it posted I realized it didn’t jive.
    Twas too late to edit it. Carry on…

  166. @Bruno
    In France most people see USA as Gilead ….

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Louis Renault

    Given that France is headed towards Sharia law maybe they shouldn’t point fingers.

  167. @Batman
    As a reminder, anytime a politician says that a gun rights ruling or law will increase inner city violence, that politician is saying blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Peter Akuleyev

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    • Replies: @Batman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Never gonna happen while I'm alive. We just had four years of Hillary and Adam Schiff trying to overthrow Trump with a memo about Ruskie hookers pissing on a hotel bed. Now we have J6 telling us that Trump tried to overthrow Biden using a guy dressed up like a buffalo. Ridiculous? Yes. Hilarious? Yes. But is the threat of the government turning fash at any moment real? Apparently yes. I'm keeping my guns for the day that happens.

    , @Prester John
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Though I am a second amendment person, I've never been comfortable with the argument that some
    have made against licensing that gun ownership is a right guaranteed under Amendment Two and therefore not subject to control by the state. In point of fact all individual rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution are subject to at least "some" degree of control, however minimal.

    , @John Johnson
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    If Blacks are doing most of the shootings with illegal guns then why should we have strict licensing? Why would the burden increase on the population not responsible?

    What we need is reasonable sentencing for illegal gun possession but Bantu fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Peter Akuleyev


    the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria.
     
    And how has that turned out for the English speaking countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, People's Republic of New York, Grand Duchy of Massachusetts?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    Next up, Oh Canada!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA9RtBOtLIY

    TRUST ME! Yell the government gun control advocates.

    WTF for?
  168. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Conservatives are generally law abiding. So there was not a lot of violence over the past half century while the morality of the country was completely changed.

    On the other hand, Progressives have shown no hesitancy to resort to violence, and the Ruling Class has demonstrated it will arbitrarily exercise prosecutorial authority to protect Progressives and punish conservatives.

    Seems to me it is just a matter of time before we see acts of terrorist violence by Progressives in states where abortion is outlawed. These crimes will be justified and glorified by the media. And judges and legal authorities in blue states will refuse to enforce extradition against suspects.

    Add that to a recession with high inflation, and we are looking at a volatile next few years in the US, I fear.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Peter Akuleyev

    Conservatives are generally law abiding

    I grew up in a rural Red state – this comment doesn’t apply. It was generally the Democrats who were sticklers about laws and fair play. Republicans tended to be more corrupt, less community minded and more violent (and just fairly stupid in general). Maybe in New Jersey it’s different.

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The Red state?

    , @Mike Tre
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “I grew up in a rural Red state”

    …about 100 miles east of Moscow?

    , @JimDandy
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The black Dems in your rural red state were sticklers about laws and fair play and fairly smart in comparison to the white Republicans in this rural red state where you came of age?

    Replies: @bomag, @Peter Akuleyev

  169. @Che Blutarsky
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebt to Ebony Obelisk for clearly stating what needed to be said. Not only was it authentic urban gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    Yes, but what about the cattle-raping?

  170. @Hibernian
    @Jonathan Mason


    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.
     
    Isn't the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I'm aware of the difference in meaning of the term "public school" between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)

    Replies: @Adept, @Jonathan Mason

    Perhaps, but Scotland feels like an entirely different country. Driving from England to Scotland is quite like driving from France to Belgium. If anything, the differences are even more extreme than that.

  171. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    There will be no riots

    ……and then the duck got an ebony obelisk up the cloaca.

  172. (Full disclosure: I am a Catholic; you may read whatever biases you like into my discourse.) The problem is that a society which cares not one whit about the sort of its posterity is not a society which can be saved by a salutary sentence, however prettily penned.

    Now, to be sure, as a normie white guy, I care not one whit about the orcs sired by baby daddies over in Section 8 or popped out by Mammacitas projected from the central part of the continent. I do not value their lives and my own life, the lives of my posterity and those of people “like me” and of their posterity would be infinitely better off with a significant reduction in (if not elimination of) their numbers. One of the reasons I decided not to actively participate in the “pro-life” movement much was that I was singularly disinterested in “celebrating life” whenever a new one was “saved” from the butcher counter. So shouldn’t I support maintaining the status quo on abortion which affects their offspring disproportionately?

    Thing is, the buck doesn’t stop there. Because, since 1948 and 1965/1986, whites like me have been effectively denied any means of protecting ourselves from home-grown and invading orcs except by projection of a right-to-eliminate healthy AND unhealthy offspring which must apply across-the-board, energizing any white girl who goes slightly astray to fly WAY off the railroad and become irremediable, and make no mistake: we have lost a number of genetically fine specimens this way. (No, abortion is not the only fuel in the motor corrupting white girls but it DEFINITELY doesn’t help.) For those of us normie whites who actually DO care about white posterity, this unholy dynamic can’t be counted on as a permanent solution to the Great Replacement.

    So what about the election? Well, at the fringes, the GOP may well lose enough Catholic monomaniac right-to-lifers and “fiscally-conservative” white yuppie women while energizing a few crazy freaks on the other side to prevent a recapture of the Senate, maybe even the House, and to impede a “clean sweep” of governorships à la 2014. But that’s not the full story. If it forces the GOP to actually defend American families on something more than (let’s face it) what amounts to an abstraction in the minds of most people pulling the lever on day D, this ruling can’t help but be good for American electoral politics.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
    @Nico

    The very religious subset of whites with high birth rates will be unaffected, because they don't get abortions. Very rich whites will be unaffected, because they can fly to states with legal abortion. But very poor whites in red and purple states will have more kids because of this ruling. It may also mean more mulattoes.

    Replies: @Rosie

  173. @The Real World
    @Twinkie


    ...human life begins at conception.
     
    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ....how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can't be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @That Would Be Telling

    That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    No, that’s not why. They estimate it from what they see because they don’t want to go asking the woman exactly when she had sex over the last few weeks. Conception happened one of those times.

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @Achmed E. Newman

    OMG, see I could laugh except it's too freaking sad, really.

    Alfred E. Newman (typo intended) - declares that conception occurred when she had sex.

    AMERICA? Do you see the problem we have? Even adults of mature ages don't understand the basics of reproduction. It is just astonishing. There should be a difficult pass/fail test about it when people go to get their drivers license.

    Conception takes place DAYS later, Alfie. It could be 3 days later, it could be 5 days after sex before conception has completed. THAT is why Docs estimate the pregnancy start. Conception does not occur moments after you make your special contribution. How magical! Smh.....

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  174. @J.Ross
    Remember the random brick pallets during the antifa peaceful riots?
    https://twitter.com/RepBoebert/status/1540486821330620416

    Replies: @tyrone

    Well at least they put down some traffic cones, SAFTY FIRST!

  175. I’ll bet the protests die out pretty quickly. Why? Black males don’t give a shit about this issue. Without the energy and violence of black males white people are too fat and lazy to protest for long.

  176. … abortion rights …

    What does that even mean?

    The way I interpret it, “abortion rights” is a euphemism for the “right” of a medical doctor to terminate the life of an unborn child without the medical doctor being in danger of being charged with murder. Note that the doctor could be a man.

    Now, have any women been prosecuted, in the U.S., for sticking the proverbial apocryphal proverbial apocryphal …, [I give up], coat-hangers in their own uteruses (uteri)?

  177. All I can predict about it is that there’ll be a lot of iSteve regulars complaining that the Roe ruling will lead to more black babies. (This is probably not even true, but they can’t even stop race mixing propaganda, “transgender children” or the total disintegration of the family, and they figure that leaving abortion legal is the only option they have and will lead to more white babies LOL)

  178. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Batman

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Batman, @Prester John, @John Johnson, @Joe Stalin

    Never gonna happen while I’m alive. We just had four years of Hillary and Adam Schiff trying to overthrow Trump with a memo about Ruskie hookers pissing on a hotel bed. Now we have J6 telling us that Trump tried to overthrow Biden using a guy dressed up like a buffalo. Ridiculous? Yes. Hilarious? Yes. But is the threat of the government turning fash at any moment real? Apparently yes. I’m keeping my guns for the day that happens.

  179. @Ebony Obelisk
    @Anon

    There will be no riots

    Unlike conservatives liberals dint Helene non vuojdhg jryegecftibn


    This tscacsed dey fix sherhda

    We will trudged this m
    We will cite your never befits in the meters

    Replies: @anonymous, @MEH 0910, @Harry Baldwin, @Che Blutarsky, @Twinkie, @tyrone, @Cloudbuster

    Clearly the language database used by the Ebony Obelisk/Tiny Duck bot has become corrupted.

    Yet it still has better posting privileges on iSteve than I do.

  180. @Hibernian
    @Dr. X


    Although he didn’t say it in the book, one can infer that the rifle was probably there for shooting two-legged critters in the head also if the need ever arose.
     
    Condoleezza Rice said that out loud on at least one occasion.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    Pretty sure those two legged critters were likely to be black than white.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Mike Tre

    At the time and in the place she mentioned (late '50s early 60s Birmingham AL) I think it was the other way around.

  181. @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    At common law, abortion was not "baby killing" until the "quickening" when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks. Most countries allow abortion up until around 12 weeks. I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother. Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law, which allows abortion up until 15 weeks because this gives responsible women plenty of time to know that they are pregnant and get an abortion.

    However, this doesn't account for IRRESPONSIBLE women. Women who are junkies and who are so befuddled that they can't get their shit together to have an abortion before week 15 or 20. While in the abstract human life should be valued, no good things are waiting for these fetuses. At best they are going to be burdens to society. At worst they are going to be life takers. So the reality is that these are exactly the abortions that should be allowed, at least up to the Roe limit of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb so it is fair to call it a baby and morally right to prohibit baby killing. But before that, the fetus is not quite a baby - it is more than nothing but less than a full human being.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don't agree with. A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby. But reasonable people can differ on this - this is why we have (50 state) legislatures, to do precisely this kind of line drawing.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Twinkie, @Mike Tre

    “Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing that most countries don’t agree with.”

    HAHAHAHA! Says the guy who’s first though after birth is to mutilate a male’s genitals.

  182. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Modern science, bro. Having sex with a 12 year old girls used to be legal under common law too, because people thought they could consent. Now we know the brain doesn’t mature until much later.

    IRRESPONSIBLE women
     
    Children of irresponsible women are also human beings and also deserve a chance at life. I’m afraid we don’t do wholesale condemnation of, and punishment-by-death for, pre-crimes just yet.

    Prohibiting abortion before 12 weeks is some kind of extreme Catholic thing
     
    Didn’t realize the pre-Roe South was such a hotbed of “extreme Catholicism.”

    that most countries don’t agree with.
     
    Most countries don’t agree with our Second Amendment either. So what?

    A fertilized egg (or just an egg) is not a baby.
     
    First of all, conflating a conceived baby with an egg is disingenuous and deceitful. Second, human life begins at conception.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre

    What isn’t discussed is the issue of abortion, at least in the United States, is a symptom of a bigger problem.

  183. @International Jew
    @Twinkie


    until you wrote the above monstrosity
     
    Yes, JackD's heart is impure.

    But to dive even deeper into that quagmire: what would the progressive response be if someone proposed that the right to an abortion be preserved just for Blacks? To make up for past injustices etc...

    Replies: @Nico

    I would be happy for a corollary to States Rights whereupon blacks and Hispanics unhappy with the system’s treatment of brownpipo could elect to be subject to a black-and-brown-run state within a state. While I personally believe abortion to be evil in the abstract – a mother not caring for her offspring is an abhorrent thing – and worth outlawing in *my* society for this reason, there are certain abortions I don’t usually get worked up about (rapists’ and baby daddies’ spawn being among them).

  184. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Conservatives are generally law abiding

    I grew up in a rural Red state - this comment doesn’t apply. It was generally the Democrats who were sticklers about laws and fair play. Republicans tended to be more corrupt, less community minded and more violent (and just fairly stupid in general). Maybe in New Jersey it’s different.

    Replies: @Ron Mexico, @Mike Tre, @JimDandy

    The Red state?

  185. @S. Anonyia
    @Reg Cæsar

    Viability is logical. After all, living people with heart beats (including young people, considering they have the best organs) often quickly have their organs harvested after a neurologist declares them “brain dead” in the hospital. The criteria for brain death is somewhat questionable and some critically ill people, especially those with strokes or TBIs, can make surprising recoveries given time. If society is okay with organ donation they should be fine with the abortions of fetuses that aren’t yet viable (like with allegedly brain dead people, the fetus has limited consciousness).

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe. Let abortion be legal in the first trimester and then make exceptions for rape/incest/genetic defects/health of the mother after that.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Real World, @Almost Missouri

    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe.

    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Almost Missouri


    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.
     
    Indeed. It will take a while for the fallout from this SC decision to work its way through. Most people seem to prefer some access to abortion in the first trimester, access to later abortion in special cases, and prohibition about 24 weeks, and perhaps many states will eventually go with that route.

    The problem is that even within states there will be differences of opinion, because no single state has 100% of its population believing in one point of view. There will be large majorities in favor of abortion restriction in some states, and there will be small majorities in others, and no majority in many more.

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    Most likely American ingenuity will develop strategies in which there will be many loopholes to exploit, and mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them--at a huge price with payment plans, of course--and a profitable new norm will take over.

    The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Almost Missouri, @epebble

  186. @ginger bread man
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.
     
    Where can I read more about this abortion being a Jewish sacrament? I would like to know more about why this is.

    See this relevant clip:
    https://youtu.be/g7NIvS4IBdc

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dutch Boy

    I see Judaism has the slutty bimbo seal of approval.

  187. Anon[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike Tre
    @The Real World

    The "right" to abort isn't established. You're presenting a false premise. You also don't understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus' right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It's pretty simple actually.

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit or protect the act of abortion. Roe v Wade took away the states' right to make the determination. That is why it is bad. The overturning of R v. W merely puts the decision to outlaw abortion or not back into the hands of the states.

    Replies: @Anon, @Prester John, @Dmon, @Zero Philosopher

    Thank you. I am not American. So was the US Constitution written with clear conscience of natural law? And, if right to life is the first stated principle in it, how can any state legislate for abortion without breaking with the Constitution? Augustine’s adage “in the essential, unity; in the non-essential, tolerance” is legal common sense.

    An extra question, is private property (the fourth principle of liberalism) enshrined directly in the Constitution or considered part of liberty/happiness?

  188. @Joe S.Walker
    @ginger bread man

    I suspect one reason she doesn't come out is that if she wrote songs griping and pissing about her old girlfriends it'd be a crime against wokeness.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    I think that’s what the song Bad Blood is about.

  189. sb says:
    @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn’t have a Constitution.
    What it doesn’t have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.
    There are a number of very significant pieces of legislation starting with Magna Carta (1215) which are said by legal scholars to be constitutional in character
    This is just a result of having unbroken legal continuity since 1066.

    Gee I sound nerdish

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @sb


    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn’t have a Constitution.
    What it doesn’t have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.
     
    Which in the US context means no constitution at all.

    The best illustration of this I know of is that if we had a Westminster Parliamentary system like Britain's, a President and a majority in the House could change the Senate into a body who's members are chosen by the President. Which New Labour sort of did in 1999.

    Replies: @Gamecock

  190. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy

    Demography trumps pieces of paper.

    Replies: @Louis Renault, @JimDandy

    Black Americans are in a lot of trouble then.

  191. @Bruno
    In France most people see USA as Gilead ….

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Louis Renault

    France bans abortion at the 14th week.

  192. @Mike Tre
    @The Real World

    The "right" to abort isn't established. You're presenting a false premise. You also don't understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus' right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It's pretty simple actually.

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit or protect the act of abortion. Roe v Wade took away the states' right to make the determination. That is why it is bad. The overturning of R v. W merely puts the decision to outlaw abortion or not back into the hands of the states.

    Replies: @Anon, @Prester John, @Dmon, @Zero Philosopher

    “…the act itself is not a right.”

    The “act itself”–is infanticide.

    Which goes under another name: murder.

    (Don’t tell that to the progs though. It would be hurtful to them and might well constitute a microaggression).

    • Agree: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @jb
    @Prester John

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a "person" under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Gamecock

  193. @Bernard

    They have effectively already been overturned. If the only rights we have are the ones that are spelled out in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional right to either same-sex marriage or contraception
     
    It’s one of the few examples of otherwise shrill arguments from the left which has substance. The right to same sex marriage isn’t explicitly bestowed or denied by the US Constitution, the same with contraception. If the Federal government wants to accommodate same sex marriages and have them recognized federally, Congress can pass a law saying so. There’s a great many people who are tired of “rights” which were never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, decided by nine judges who legislate as a kings. The court was not meant to be a super legislator, but that’s what it has become. The last two decisions have reclaimed a small bit of the people’s right to govern themselves. That’s terrifying for the left.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Jonathan Mason

    You are constitutionally illiterate. The Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Sincerely,

    the Founding Fathers

    • Replies: @Bernard
    @Rosie



    @Bernard
    You are constitutionally illiterate. The Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Sincerely,

    the Founding Fathers
     

    Here’s a good article explaining why the Ninth Amendment isn’t the Swiss Army knife of the US Constitution and doesn’t allow the Supreme Court to find rights at it’s whim.

    https://i2i.org/understanding-the-constitution-why-biden-is-wrong-to-think-the-9th-amendment-protects-abortion/


    As a side note, I’ve often wondered why you frequently visit a gathering spot for those you have such low regard for. Many of your responses are ad hominem, rude attacks that come across petty and angry. Sadly, the internet’s anonymity gives some a license to indulge in their lesser selves. Perhaps that’s the case here.

    Replies: @Rosie

  194. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Batman

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Batman, @Prester John, @John Johnson, @Joe Stalin

    Though I am a second amendment person, I’ve never been comfortable with the argument that some
    have made against licensing that gun ownership is a right guaranteed under Amendment Two and therefore not subject to control by the state. In point of fact all individual rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution are subject to at least “some” degree of control, however minimal.

  195. @Hibernian
    @Jonathan Mason


    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.
     
    Isn't the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I'm aware of the difference in meaning of the term "public school" between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)

    Replies: @Adept, @Jonathan Mason

    Isn’t the same also true of England, Sctland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? With the possible exception of the Wal-Marts? (I’m aware of the difference in meaning of the term “public school” between the UK and the US, but I think both countries have schools that fit both meanings.)

    No school buses in UK. Well, there are some dedicated school buses, but most children are transported to schools in regular local buses of many different color shades, and if you are over 8 years of age and live within three miles of the school, you are expected to walk (or cycle) unless disabled, or there is no safe walking route. In the US it seems general that there are huge fleets of (always?) yellow buses dedicated to transporting children to schools, which are idled during school vacations and weekends and not used for other purposes.

    Scotland, on the other hand, has a different education system from England, having a different age of entry, a different grade system, a different curriculum, different exams and qualifications, and a different system of undergraduate degrees. (For example, in Scotland children have 7 years of elementary school.)

    However my main point is that the 50 states of the US are still remarkably similar considering that they are spread over thousands of miles and several different climate zones and have very different histories.

    The 12 independent states of South America display much more diversity in everyday life, than the 50 states of the USA.

  196. @Corn
    Late to this thread after a long day……

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Some exuberant RWers online have basically been saying that it means “constitutional carry” is now the law of the land, but I doubt that.

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @John Johnson, @That Would Be Telling

    The issue at hand is whether states can have a “may issue” (ie discretionary) concealed weapons regime or if they are obligated to have “shall issue” policy that gives a permit to all qualified applicants who ask for one. They can still put conditions on who is eligible and how to get one, but once those conditions are met, they can no longer deny a license for discretionary reasons (ie “tell us why you think you need it and we’ll see if we agree, but we probably don’t unless you are rich or famous”).

    What is not immediately clear to me is if states can completely ban legal concealed carry by private citizens altogether or if concealed carry itself is now required to be allowed everywhere, with local licensing requirements and conditions. My guess is the latter based on what I have read so far, but I haven’t seen that specific question asked.

    • Thanks: Corn
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @JR Ewing


    What is not immediately clear to me is if states can completely ban legal concealed carry by private citizens altogether or if concealed carry itself is now required to be allowed everywhere, with local licensing requirements and conditions.
     
    The ruling doesn’t tell states/cities what ‘flavor’ of carry, only that they all allow some form of carry for normal citizens. The choices are: concealed and/or open (carrier’s whim), open only, or concealed only. In blue jurisdictions, it will be concealed only.
  197. @Kronos
    @Batman

    They say the same thing regarding limits on abortion. Biden “himself” publicly stated in a press release that “abortion control” hurts poor people of color the most.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    It’s actually a pretty common argument and basically the only one they have:

    “Women have no agency and can’t help but fuck like rabbits. Why do we want to punish them for that?”

    To some degree, I think the “women of color” variation is at least a little bit honest, if at odds with their other stated beliefs.

  198. @Almost Missouri
    @S. Anonyia


    I don’t see why the US is incapable of nuance on the issue like Europe.
     
    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.

    Indeed. It will take a while for the fallout from this SC decision to work its way through. Most people seem to prefer some access to abortion in the first trimester, access to later abortion in special cases, and prohibition about 24 weeks, and perhaps many states will eventually go with that route.

    The problem is that even within states there will be differences of opinion, because no single state has 100% of its population believing in one point of view. There will be large majorities in favor of abortion restriction in some states, and there will be small majorities in others, and no majority in many more.

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    Most likely American ingenuity will develop strategies in which there will be many loopholes to exploit, and mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over.

    The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Jonathan Mason


    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.
     
    I know a woman who worked as an intern for the ACLU 20+ years ago in law school and was assigned to cases trying secure abortions for female inmates in Texas prisons. Most of these women were knocked up before they were incarcerated but there was one case I remember she told me about where there had been a consensual relationship with a guard.

    I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, that seems like a ghoulish job advocating for the state to pay for women to kill their babies. Even if the care of the pregnant women and babies was expensive, the state of Texas tried really hard not to provide abortions until they were forced to do so in each individual case. A lot of the legal work involved emergency court filings in an attempt to prevent the state from running out the clock.

    On the other, this clearly was back when the ACLU actually fought to protect “rights” instead of squandering its reputation on promoting faddish culture war issues.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.
     
    All law is normative and therefore based on belief. And all belief is de facto religious. So all law is religious. The only question is which religion.

    Furthermore, this English public schoolboy notion of being "on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges" is ... well, there's a lot wrong with it, philosophically, legally, jurisdictionally, and aesthetically, but mostly it's just cringe, as the kids say. Since you're not American and don't understand America, I won't trouble you with the rest of it.

    mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over. The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.
     
    This is ... hyperbolic. In fact, yesterday's ruling will make almost no difference in actual abortions. By a weird coincidence, states that dislike abortion already don't have abortion providers:
    https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/720/90/sites/default/files/20220507_GDP205_0.jpg
    Women in those states already go elsewhere to get abortions, no leftwing fever dream of "Underground Railroads" required.

    At bottom, these rulings are not really about abortions or even about guns. They are about restoring a semblance of Constitutional order.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.
     
    Okay, that's an amusing (though inaccurate, see above) jest. Maybe you're starting to understand the current regime a bit after all.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.
     
    Not really, see the above map. There is however a near perfect correlation between the political party that was pro-slavery and is pro-abortion.

    Replies: @Jack D, @epebble

    , @epebble
    @Jonathan Mason


    well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over.
     
    I live in Oregon; our governor and legislature have already agreed to welcome any abortion seeker from states where it is illegal. For us, since Washington and California are both permissive, it would mean welcoming any Idahoan at the border and offering service, freely if needed.

    California and New York already have well developed infrastructure for Birth tourism where out of staters visit to holiday and give birth. The same infrastructure can be used to provide abortion services to middle class and above residents from other states.

    https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/california-washington-and-oregon-pledge-to-protect-abortion-patients-from-other-states/

    https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2018/11/oregon-abortion-laws-bring-in-out-of-state-residents.html

    Replies: @Random Anonymous

  199. @JimDandy
    it needs a fair amount of federalism.


    Agreed. American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy. The constitution clearly gives people the right to bear arms, and does not give people the right to an abortion.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre, @pyrrhus

    The Real World is a broad who trolls the front page Unz articles with her globohomo rhetoric.

  200. @Bernard

    They have effectively already been overturned. If the only rights we have are the ones that are spelled out in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional right to either same-sex marriage or contraception
     
    It’s one of the few examples of otherwise shrill arguments from the left which has substance. The right to same sex marriage isn’t explicitly bestowed or denied by the US Constitution, the same with contraception. If the Federal government wants to accommodate same sex marriages and have them recognized federally, Congress can pass a law saying so. There’s a great many people who are tired of “rights” which were never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, decided by nine judges who legislate as a kings. The court was not meant to be a super legislator, but that’s what it has become. The last two decisions have reclaimed a small bit of the people’s right to govern themselves. That’s terrifying for the left.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Jonathan Mason

    The right to same sex marriage isn’t explicitly bestowed or denied by the US Constitution, the same with contraception.

    Banning contraception is definitely establishment of religion.

    • Replies: @Random Anonymous
    @Jonathan Mason

    Tommyrot.

    , @Redman
    @Jonathan Mason

    It’s not. The moral underpinning behind such a policy may have it’s foundation in scripture, but it could find its foundation elsewhere as well in a particular state. Hence, it’s not the government establishment of a religion.

  201. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Conservatives are generally law abiding

    I grew up in a rural Red state - this comment doesn’t apply. It was generally the Democrats who were sticklers about laws and fair play. Republicans tended to be more corrupt, less community minded and more violent (and just fairly stupid in general). Maybe in New Jersey it’s different.

    Replies: @Ron Mexico, @Mike Tre, @JimDandy

    “I grew up in a rural Red state”

    …about 100 miles east of Moscow?

    • LOL: Hibernian
  202. Anonymous[330] • Disclaimer says:

    This isn’t about morals. It’s about IQ and taxes.

    I don’t want low IQ proles having more kids than they do. I already pay for their disgusting bastards using taxes. Break up America. It’s not about liberal vs conservative, or Christian vs Atheist.

    It’s about low IQ vs high IQ. rich vs poor. proles vs swpls. I don’t want to live in fat prole low IQ Kentucky. I want to live on the Upper East Side.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    You're delusional on the Upper East Side bit. Globocapitalism mandates your enrichment.

    Formerly you had that arrangement in Seattle and Portland, not difficult to see what's transpired there. You can sort of get a facsimile of it in Vermont, but you'll be around pot-smoker whites who don't shower. Stop expecting the government to subsidize your secular, soap-using, IQ-maxx lifestyle.

  203. @EdwardM
    @Rooster16

    Rally point, win at all costs, foaming at the mouth, hating Clarence Thomas... Meh. This is nothing new. Remember what they said about G.W. Bush, McCain, Romney? If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf. It’s true that there is an element of the population that does continue to outdo itself, but this doesn’t seem to be persuading people who are persuadable.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Gordo

    If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf.

    I suspect some people don’t notice them crying wolf, but they’re not the persuadable as you later pointed out. But I’ll point the Left has been doing this trope since the early 1940s when in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!), and with I assume the sole exception of Eisenhower because it would be so silly, every Republican presidential candidate after has been “literally Hitler” starting with Dewey (!). Now of course everyone on the right is “literally worse than Hitler” so as I think you’re saying, “eh.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling


    in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!),
     
    This is usually not how it works among Dems. Among Dems, the CURRENT Republican candidate is always a fascist but they have Strange New Respect for widely beloved Republicans who are dead or out of power. Of course there are exceptions such as Nixon and Hoover who the Dems will kick around to the end of time, but Strange New Respect has extended to Reagan, the Bushes, etc., all of whom can be compared favorably to TODAY'S Republicans who are, as we know, a bunch of fascists.

    The idea is to appeal to swing voters and get moderate Republicans to cross party lines. The line is, "I could conceive of voting for a moderate Republican like [Old Dead Republican who was excoriated by Dems as a fascist when he was still alive and running for office but forget about that part] but I could NEVER vote for a fascist like [Modern Day Republican who is currently running].

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  204. @AnotherDad
    @Anon


    Can someone explain how banning abortion is going to benefit me?
     
    I could paint a picture of a different sort of sane, cohesive, family-children-future oriented society that actually would be quite beneficial to all the people in it. (Unfortunately, that's not the society we have.)

    But the main point here is that the Supreme Court isn't banning abortion or stipulating anything about abortion one way or another. It's simply--applying the Constitution--and kicking the issue back to the people of every state to decide it however they wish.

    Republican, constitutional government actually is beneficial to you, compared to elite diktat.

    Replies: @Anon

    The constitution says states have the right to ban it, whatever.

    How does it benefit me when they do so?

    • Replies: @Redman
    @Anon

    Spoken like a true utilitarian. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can it do for Anon #179.”

  205. @Rosie
    @Hallie Scott Kline


    I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters.
     
    The fact that you are aware of your own ignorance means you are a savvier citizen than the various loudmouths commenting here about how great it is that the various governments will now have more power to control our lives.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?
     
    From what I understand about the opinion I haven’t yet mustered the courage to read, no.

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.
     
    No. Explicit Amendments to the Constitution, the 19th included, are safe.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?
     
    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.

    What is very much at stake is parental Rights, which have no explicit constitutional protection. Rights like
    visitation for noncustodial, and even unfit parents,
    the right to send your child to a private school, or none at all,
    the right to not be forced to have an abortion if the state decides that your child shouldn't be born,
    the right to have as many children as you want or none at all
    The right to teach your child to be proud of their racial heritage, even if they're White without fear that the state will take them away from you because you're "racist."
    The right to buy condoms.

    Replies: @JR Ewing

    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.

    I’m not disagreeing with you on result of this, which was your point, but I do feel obliged to argue the matter itself that it’s not at all clear that denying gay marriage violates equal protection.

    Before the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie” were visited upon America, and even before some states took the plunge to allow gay marriage, gays have always had the same right as straights to get married. There was no “equal protection” argument to be made: everyone was prohibited equally from marrying someone of the same sex and everyone was allowed equally to marry anyone they chose of the opposite sex.

    Neither “homosexuality” nor “marriage” is mentioned in the constitution, and up until this lunacy became mainstream ~20 years ago, there were no state marriage laws that mentioned homosexuality. They simply said “one man and one woman” and they applied it to everyone, regardless of sexuality.

    But again, I agree with you that the mainstream take is that those laws still violated equal protection in some way and therefore gay marriage is a necessary outcome under the 15th amendment.

    • Replies: @jb
    @JR Ewing


    ...even before some states took the plunge to allow gay marriage, gays have always had the same right as straights to get married.
     
    YES YES YES! It infuriated me that nobody ever focused on this point when it still might have done some good. Gays always had exactly the same marriage rights as straight people; that just wasn't what they wanted.

    Now if they had acknowledged that redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex was radical and unprecedented in Western (and in fact pretty much all of world) history, and then gone on to argue that it was a good idea anyway, I would still have opposed it, but I would have at least respected them for making an honest argument. Of course like all radicals they weren't interested in honest arguments, they were interested in winning. I just wish my side had done a better job of calling them on it.
  206. The Leftards act as if the Court banned abortion. They didn’t.

    This causes Lefties a hardship in that they will now have get their lazy asses up to work at the state level to get it/keep it legal. Roe v. Wade was a labor saver, getting it done once at the federal level.

    The protests are in big Democrat cities where there is no chance that abortion will be abolished.

    The idea that this will hurt Republicans is silly. Where it matters, they were going to vote Democrat, anyway. LA wasn’t going to flip Republican, and this stopped it.

  207. @Anonymous
    @Wade Hampton

    Life is so dreadful, so full of calamities and heartbreak that it would be better to have never been born.
    But who is so fortunate as that? Fewer than on in a hundred thousand.

    or maybe a few more, given widespread abortion.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    LOL–I always have that thought when listening to the old Brother Theodore bit.

  208. @The Real World
    @Twinkie


    ...human life begins at conception.
     
    Uh oh, you blew your cover with that one. But, it is my favorite and talking about being in the modern era ....how come it is that, in the 21st century, sooooo many yahoos ignorantly trot that one out when they could easily verify that is an unknowable demarcation point?

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs. The whole process takes days. That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.

    So, can we just load women up with all the contraceptives they need AND plenty of Plan B pills and be done with all this drama and reproductive ignorance? We all know that men can't be counted on to be responsible in that regard so, lets just hugely help her prevent it and move on to dealing with this country falling apart before our eyes.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @That Would Be Telling

    Reagan had a good analogy for dealing with the threshold of conception or any other regarding abortion: “If you’re walking down the street and see a paper bag that might contain something alive, would you kick it?”

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @That Would Be Telling

    Reagan said some clever things but, that one is just dumb and has no bearing.

    A fertilized egg at conception is 0.1 millimeter in diameter. So, microscopic. At 3 weeks the zygote is still not visible to the naked eye.

    So, Reagan was alright but, color me not shocked that he was woefully uninformed about reproduction. Like 90% of America, it seems.

  209. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians.
     
    Hell, what suits downstate New Yorkers doesn't even suit upstate New Yorkers. It may suit northern Virginians, though.

    Replies: @Jack D

    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore. NYC and the Adirondacks are like two different worlds. Virginia was split into 2 states. Maybe if NY was split you could get 2 more Republican senators from upstate.

    It’s very common around the country to have blue cities in red states – these sometimes tip the states blue due to the large population of the cities (and maybe a little urban vote fraud). Again, maybe it’s time to have city-states that are separate from the rest of their state because they don’t have a lot in common anymore.

    A lot of people here seem to be in favor of a national divorce. I think that would be disastrous. But I’m not against having separate bedrooms under the same roof. This would also entail Washington not forcing choices on either the red or the blue states depending on who controlled Congress and the White House that week.

    • Agree: Russ
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Jack D

    It’s almost as if the city mice really are different than the country mice. ☮

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore.
     
    Oklahoma just became the 28th state to surpass the 1790 population of the whole country:




    https://worldpopulationreview.com/states

    Connecticut was almost there at the turn of the century, then stalled. The Constitution State, once a tax haven like New Jersey, is paying for Griswold.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/connecticut-population


    Nine of the other original thirteen outnumber the Union at its birth.
  210. @Corn
    Late to this thread after a long day……

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Some exuberant RWers online have basically been saying that it means “constitutional carry” is now the law of the land, but I doubt that.

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @John Johnson, @That Would Be Telling

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can’t deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.

    It does not mean Federal constitutional carry as even some liberal media outlets assume.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The liberal cities and states have already indicated that they are going to try their best to resist the ruling and be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. They will repeal their Sullivan Law or equivalent and enact something that (arguably, if you really stretch it) supposedly complies with Bruen but in fact is just as restrictive as their Sullivan Law. Then people will take them to court over that and they will lose, and they will enact something else that is a equal but different stretch, etc. Every step along the way will take years and in the meantime they won't be issuing permits.

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they "lost them", etc.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @John Johnson, @Hibernian

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson


    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can’t deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.
     
    True, but the current facts on the ground are much worse for the city, Massachusetts, and based on what I heard of the new post-Uvalde New York state bill the whole state as well.

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun? That's May Issue in all of the above, and close to No Issue in NYC, where there were only 60,000 licenses each for handgun and long gun possession outstanding as of a few years ago when the lists with names, addresses etc. were released to the media.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.
     
    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they've been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald. Which I'm not betting on given how much they hate this issue, and don't want it filling up their calendar compared to the normal globohomo and First Amendment cases (remember that the same court is enforcing World War T on the nation).

    Part of what resulted in Bruen was Thomas getting increasingly scathing about how they'd fill their docket with the latter while ignoring every firearms related Second Amendment case except for a near nothingburger pertaining to where NYC residents should go for target practice. Which if the city hadn't caved wouldn't have normally resulted in a sweeping decision, like the lower court one which struck the NY SAFE act restriction on magazine capacities from the normal ten to seven.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  211. @That Would Be Telling
    @EdwardM


    If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf.
     
    I suspect some people don't notice them crying wolf, but they're not the persuadable as you later pointed out. But I'll point the Left has been doing this trope since the early 1940s when in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!), and with I assume the sole exception of Eisenhower because it would be so silly, every Republican presidential candidate after has been "literally Hitler" starting with Dewey (!). Now of course everyone on the right is "literally worse than Hitler" so as I think you're saying, "eh."

    Replies: @Jack D

    in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!),

    This is usually not how it works among Dems. Among Dems, the CURRENT Republican candidate is always a fascist but they have Strange New Respect for widely beloved Republicans who are dead or out of power. Of course there are exceptions such as Nixon and Hoover who the Dems will kick around to the end of time, but Strange New Respect has extended to Reagan, the Bushes, etc., all of whom can be compared favorably to TODAY’S Republicans who are, as we know, a bunch of fascists.

    The idea is to appeal to swing voters and get moderate Republicans to cross party lines. The line is, “I could conceive of voting for a moderate Republican like [Old Dead Republican who was excoriated by Dems as a fascist when he was still alive and running for office but forget about that part] but I could NEVER vote for a fascist like [Modern Day Republican who is currently running].

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    Both sides always exaggerate in US elections, so it is always a fascist versus a damn commie, and there is really any serious discussion of contemporary issues.

    The truth is that the majority of candidates for national election are probably somewhat moderate, but they have to tweak their campaigning materials to appeal to party activists and voters within their constituency, which may have the effect of making them appear like rabid dogs.

    There are probably a small minority like Marjorie Green and AOC who are genuinely nuts.

    Replies: @epebble

  212. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Batman

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Batman, @Prester John, @John Johnson, @Joe Stalin

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    If Blacks are doing most of the shootings with illegal guns then why should we have strict licensing? Why would the burden increase on the population not responsible?

    What we need is reasonable sentencing for illegal gun possession but Bantu fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    What is needed is large enhancements (which are actually enforced) for the use of a gun in commission of a crime. You have a dozen guns (licensed or not) sitting in your gun cabinet at home? No problem. You use a gun to hold up a 7-11? 20 years. The problem is not gun ownership - millions of Americans own guns and always have. The problem is gun USAGE.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  213. @EdwardM
    @Rooster16

    Rally point, win at all costs, foaming at the mouth, hating Clarence Thomas... Meh. This is nothing new. Remember what they said about G.W. Bush, McCain, Romney? If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler” compared to the somewhat brash, if harmless and sort of reasonable, Trump.

    The left always doubles down and doesn’t understand the concept of crying wolf. It’s true that there is an element of the population that does continue to outdo itself, but this doesn’t seem to be persuading people who are persuadable.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Gordo

    If DeSantis is the nominee in 2024, they will say he’s “literally Hitler”

    Chaps a bit swarthy for that, perhaps they could try ‘literally Franco’?

  214. @John Johnson
    @Corn

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can't deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.

    It does not mean Federal constitutional carry as even some liberal media outlets assume.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

    The liberal cities and states have already indicated that they are going to try their best to resist the ruling and be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. They will repeal their Sullivan Law or equivalent and enact something that (arguably, if you really stretch it) supposedly complies with Bruen but in fact is just as restrictive as their Sullivan Law. Then people will take them to court over that and they will lose, and they will enact something else that is a equal but different stretch, etc. Every step along the way will take years and in the meantime they won’t be issuing permits.

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they “lost them”, etc.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D

    Well, I support liberals on this issue....

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-saturday/index.html

    Black women accounted for the highest percentage of abortions by women seeking the procedure in the US in 2019, receiving 38.4% of all abortions performed, according to data collected by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also had the highest abortion rate, 23.8 abortions per 1,000 women, the data shows. Hispanic women sought 21% of all abortions in 2019, the data indicates.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gcSFR7c4o

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they “lost them”, etc.

    This is what I expect. They will add endless requirements for citizens while bodyguards for the wealthy and connected will be given an occupational exemption.

    The only way to really defeat them would be through an initiative that defines the requirements. Of course that would never pass in NYC.

    The power is retained by anti-gun cities. This really isn't a loss for them.

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D

    At some point there may be a Federal Writ of Mandamus.

  215. @Anonymous
    I laugh out loud at these ugly suburban white women trying to give their best impression of an aggrieved black while confronting the police, as shown below. It’s so racially condescending. Were I an urban black gal , I’d find her obnoxious enough to prompt her ass-whooping right then and there.

    Speaking of whom, a reduction of abortion services would most dramatically affect black people, yet they’re glaringly underrepresented, in relation to their urban population, in these baby-killing hootenannies. Just a lot of ugly, fat, white women and their friend-zoned uglier male cohorts.

    Seems like a leading indicator that this demonstration crap is gonna peter out, leaving the most psychotic actors floating about in small groups.

    https://twitter.com/SamBraslow/status/1540564963978186752?s=20&t=V_xI_BocuCzoZnvHmaxTOA

    Replies: @LP5

    …these ugly suburban white women…

    Expect marchers wearing pussy hats accessorized with coat hangers.

  216. @Corn
    Late to this thread after a long day……

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Some exuberant RWers online have basically been saying that it means “constitutional carry” is now the law of the land, but I doubt that.

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @John Johnson, @That Would Be Telling

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    […]

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?

    For New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen which it looks like we might start calling Bruen, the first thing to note is that unless you live in New York, and maybe not even then, it’s simply not worth paying attention to unless and until we discover if the Supreme Court is going to play Lucy and the football for another dozen years like they did after MacDonald.

    A decision that’s not enforced is entirely worthless when it comes to the facts on the ground, and unlike abortion or First Amendment cases this is very much a topic the Supreme Court as a whole doesn’t want to deal with, full stop. If this decision was a one time gift to Thomas who was getting increasingly scathing about that twelve years when the lower courts ran free and all the relevant ones except for Illinois always sided with state governments….

    But if you want a reading now, the best TL;DR I’ve found so far is Eugene Volokh’s.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling

    Volokh's essay is basically a template for how the Leftist state governments are going to push the ruling:


    1. This right can be limited to the extent that there is a historical tradition of limitation
     
    Dig up obscure historical parallels and claim that your new law is the same as the restriction that they had in Massachusetts in 1826 and no one ever complained about it back then.

    The right can also be limited by regulations that impose only a modest burden on law-abiding people's ability to defend themselves.
     
    Push the limits of what is "modest" . Gun ownership can be limited to "law-abiding, responsible citizens". Are you white and have you ever had a traffic ticket or not paid your taxes? Maybe you are not a responsible citizen.

    Restrictions on carrying in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings":
     
    What are other "sensitive places"? Churches? Shopping malls? Stadiums? Public recreational facilities? Bars and clubs? Anyplace where alcohol is sold (supermarkets)? I could think of a pretty long list of "sensitive places" which would include just about everywhere people actually go.

    nondiscretionary licensing restrictions, unless they involve "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees"
     
    How long is lengthy and how high a fee is exorbitant?

    Restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill:
     
    How do we know that you are not among the millions of white Americans who are among the undiagnosed mentally ill? Perhaps you need a mental health screening before we give you this permit? We see here in your dossier that during your divorce proceeding your ex-wife said that you had on multiple occasions threatened to "send her to the moon", Mr. Kramden. Is not support for Trump and his false election fraud claims itself a sign of mental illness?

    Restrictions on machineguns and other "dangerous and unusual" weapons—
     
    What is dangerous and unusual? AR-15 type guns? Large magazines, etc.?

    And so on. You could pass a law with a dozen booby-traps in it like this and spend years in court (and remember that many of the lower courts and appeals courts are dominated by Leftists) arguing over stuff like this.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  217. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Almost Missouri


    Has there been any moment in the last six years that the media have not been full libtard? Heck, the past 14 years? The past 21?
     
    14, but maybe even 21.

    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden's plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician's speech), from 30-something years ago. It's amazing!

    What's amazing was just seeing these people not be completely one-sided. I know I should remember this, as I watched the news back then. I wouldn't be surprised if goolag/youtube banned video clips of old newscasts due to this. People can't imagine that journalists could have ever been anything but an arm of the ctrl-left anymore. They'd like to keep it this way.

    Replies: @Gordo

    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden’s plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician’s speech), from 30-something years ago. It’s amazing!

    Welsh, Neil Kinnock was the “Welsh Windbag”.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Gordo

    That's him. Thanks, Gordo. The newsman was Sam Donaldson at ABC, as posted in The Lyin' Press of 1988. It was different 34 years ago alright.

    Haha, I'm not sure "literally Franco" would work. Maybe 1 in 25 Americans would have any idea who he was. I guess that wouldn't stop them anyway, come to think of it...

    Replies: @nebulafox

  218. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The liberal cities and states have already indicated that they are going to try their best to resist the ruling and be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. They will repeal their Sullivan Law or equivalent and enact something that (arguably, if you really stretch it) supposedly complies with Bruen but in fact is just as restrictive as their Sullivan Law. Then people will take them to court over that and they will lose, and they will enact something else that is a equal but different stretch, etc. Every step along the way will take years and in the meantime they won't be issuing permits.

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they "lost them", etc.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @John Johnson, @Hibernian

    Well, I support liberals on this issue….

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-saturday/index.html

    Black women accounted for the highest percentage of abortions by women seeking the procedure in the US in 2019, receiving 38.4% of all abortions performed, according to data collected by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also had the highest abortion rate, 23.8 abortions per 1,000 women, the data shows. Hispanic women sought 21% of all abortions in 2019, the data indicates.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I fully agree. That is why the anti-abortion ideology ("preserve human life") sounds wonderful in the abstract but not so wonderful when you apply it to the real world. More unwanted black babies are the last thing that we need. The imaginary baby who will be saved by these laws is a cute white kid who could have been adopted. The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    It's even worse than these stats sound. As you make abortion more difficult it's still not going to be a problem for affluent white women - they will work around the system. They would fly to Switzerland if they had to. But the poorer and blacker and less resourceful you are, the more likely you are just going to end up having the baby. So the marginal babies produced by these laws are going to be overwhelmingly black and brown and from poor homes. It would be hard to think of a more dysgenic law and we already have plenty of dysgenic pressure.

    But this is all a matter for the state legislatures and not the Supreme Ct. All 50 states should have liberal abortion laws as far as I am concerned.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Johann Ricke, @Thoughts

  219. @John Johnson
    @Corn

    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    I’ve been told it means that every state must now have, at minimum, a “shall issue” system for concealed carry permits.

    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can't deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.

    It does not mean Federal constitutional carry as even some liberal media outlets assume.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can’t deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.

    True, but the current facts on the ground are much worse for the city, Massachusetts, and based on what I heard of the new post-Uvalde New York state bill the whole state as well.

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun? That’s May Issue in all of the above, and close to No Issue in NYC, where there were only 60,000 licenses each for handgun and long gun possession outstanding as of a few years ago when the lists with names, addresses etc. were released to the media.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.

    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they’ve been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald. Which I’m not betting on given how much they hate this issue, and don’t want it filling up their calendar compared to the normal globohomo and First Amendment cases (remember that the same court is enforcing World War T on the nation).

    Part of what resulted in Bruen was Thomas getting increasingly scathing about how they’d fill their docket with the latter while ignoring every firearms related Second Amendment case except for a near nothingburger pertaining to where NYC residents should go for target practice. Which if the city hadn’t caved wouldn’t have normally resulted in a sweeping decision, like the lower court one which struck the NY SAFE act restriction on magazine capacities from the normal ten to seven.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun?

    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.

    Getting a permit to conceal carry is nearly impossible unless you are wealthy or connected.

    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they’ve been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald.

    It's an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @That Would Be Telling

  220. @Jonathan Mason
    @Almost Missouri


    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.
     
    Indeed. It will take a while for the fallout from this SC decision to work its way through. Most people seem to prefer some access to abortion in the first trimester, access to later abortion in special cases, and prohibition about 24 weeks, and perhaps many states will eventually go with that route.

    The problem is that even within states there will be differences of opinion, because no single state has 100% of its population believing in one point of view. There will be large majorities in favor of abortion restriction in some states, and there will be small majorities in others, and no majority in many more.

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    Most likely American ingenuity will develop strategies in which there will be many loopholes to exploit, and mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them--at a huge price with payment plans, of course--and a profitable new norm will take over.

    The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Almost Missouri, @epebble

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    I know a woman who worked as an intern for the ACLU 20+ years ago in law school and was assigned to cases trying secure abortions for female inmates in Texas prisons. Most of these women were knocked up before they were incarcerated but there was one case I remember she told me about where there had been a consensual relationship with a guard.

    I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, that seems like a ghoulish job advocating for the state to pay for women to kill their babies. Even if the care of the pregnant women and babies was expensive, the state of Texas tried really hard not to provide abortions until they were forced to do so in each individual case. A lot of the legal work involved emergency court filings in an attempt to prevent the state from running out the clock.

    On the other, this clearly was back when the ACLU actually fought to protect “rights” instead of squandering its reputation on promoting faddish culture war issues.

  221. @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling


    in a particular vicious speech FDR claimed Calvin Coolidge was a fascist (!),
     
    This is usually not how it works among Dems. Among Dems, the CURRENT Republican candidate is always a fascist but they have Strange New Respect for widely beloved Republicans who are dead or out of power. Of course there are exceptions such as Nixon and Hoover who the Dems will kick around to the end of time, but Strange New Respect has extended to Reagan, the Bushes, etc., all of whom can be compared favorably to TODAY'S Republicans who are, as we know, a bunch of fascists.

    The idea is to appeal to swing voters and get moderate Republicans to cross party lines. The line is, "I could conceive of voting for a moderate Republican like [Old Dead Republican who was excoriated by Dems as a fascist when he was still alive and running for office but forget about that part] but I could NEVER vote for a fascist like [Modern Day Republican who is currently running].

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Both sides always exaggerate in US elections, so it is always a fascist versus a damn commie, and there is really any serious discussion of contemporary issues.

    The truth is that the majority of candidates for national election are probably somewhat moderate, but they have to tweak their campaigning materials to appeal to party activists and voters within their constituency, which may have the effect of making them appear like rabid dogs.

    There are probably a small minority like Marjorie Green and AOC who are genuinely nuts.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jonathan Mason

    to appeal to party activists and voters within their constituency

    You got that wrong. A typical politician spends at least half of his/her time fundraising. Job #1 is to get reelected. Everything comes after that. Many legislators hate to cast a vote they have to, to keep their job.

  222. @sb
    @michael droy

    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn't have a Constitution.
    What it doesn't have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.
    There are a number of very significant pieces of legislation starting with Magna Carta (1215) which are said by legal scholars to be constitutional in character
    This is just a result of having unbroken legal continuity since 1066.

    Gee I sound nerdish

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn’t have a Constitution.
    What it doesn’t have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.

    Which in the US context means no constitution at all.

    The best illustration of this I know of is that if we had a Westminster Parliamentary system like Britain’s, a President and a majority in the House could change the Senate into a body who’s members are chosen by the President. Which New Labour sort of did in 1999.

    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @That Would Be Telling

    10-4. I was baffled by Theresa May declaring Net Zero by 2050 . . . and that's it, it's the law (!).

  223. @Mike Tre
    @The Real World

    The "right" to abort isn't established. You're presenting a false premise. You also don't understand the concept of what a natural right is. By nature, true individual rights do not infringe upon the individual rights of others. In this case, since the act of abortion infringes upon the human fetus' right to life, then the act itself is not a right. It's pretty simple actually.

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit or protect the act of abortion. Roe v Wade took away the states' right to make the determination. That is why it is bad. The overturning of R v. W merely puts the decision to outlaw abortion or not back into the hands of the states.

    Replies: @Anon, @Prester John, @Dmon, @Zero Philosopher

    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn’t prohibit it. Well, I just checked the constitution, and it doesn’t prohibit murder either.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Dmon


    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn’t prohibit it.
     
    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That's retarded.

    The point of the whole substantive due process line of cases is that the enumerated rights a long shadow or "penumbra." An example: The Constitution doesn't specifically provide you with the right to send your child to private school, but it does provide you with the rights to freedom of expression and religion, and that the right to send your child to a private school is necessary for those rights to be fully actualized.

    You can disagree or not, bit please spare us the ridiculous straw man about the Constitution protecting abortion simply because it is not specifically prohibited. Please, it's obvious that you're not a lawyer. Of course, you6still entitled to your opinion, but please, make it an informed opinion or just STFU.

    Mike's other argument, thatmthe fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life, is just begging the question.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Dmon

  224. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The liberal cities and states have already indicated that they are going to try their best to resist the ruling and be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. They will repeal their Sullivan Law or equivalent and enact something that (arguably, if you really stretch it) supposedly complies with Bruen but in fact is just as restrictive as their Sullivan Law. Then people will take them to court over that and they will lose, and they will enact something else that is a equal but different stretch, etc. Every step along the way will take years and in the meantime they won't be issuing permits.

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they "lost them", etc.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @John Johnson, @Hibernian

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they “lost them”, etc.

    This is what I expect. They will add endless requirements for citizens while bodyguards for the wealthy and connected will be given an occupational exemption.

    The only way to really defeat them would be through an initiative that defines the requirements. Of course that would never pass in NYC.

    The power is retained by anti-gun cities. This really isn’t a loss for them.

  225. @JimDandy
    it needs a fair amount of federalism.


    Agreed. American needs to respect the constitution and the rule of law or else descend into violent idiocracy. The constitution clearly gives people the right to bear arms, and does not give people the right to an abortion.

    Replies: @The Real World, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Mike Tre, @pyrrhus

    Since the Roe decision involved a non-case or controversy–Roe had already given birth–it was illegitimate from its inception, and violated the Constitution…It’s reasoning was specious to put it mildly, since in every State abortion had been a crime, and creating a judicial dictatorship was a gross violation of separation of powers and States’ rights…When I was in law school, even those who supported the result of Roe admitted that it was a terrible legal precedent…

  226. @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    Both sides always exaggerate in US elections, so it is always a fascist versus a damn commie, and there is really any serious discussion of contemporary issues.

    The truth is that the majority of candidates for national election are probably somewhat moderate, but they have to tweak their campaigning materials to appeal to party activists and voters within their constituency, which may have the effect of making them appear like rabid dogs.

    There are probably a small minority like Marjorie Green and AOC who are genuinely nuts.

    Replies: @epebble

    to appeal to party activists and voters within their constituency

    You got that wrong. A typical politician spends at least half of his/her time fundraising. Job #1 is to get reelected. Everything comes after that. Many legislators hate to cast a vote they have to, to keep their job.

  227. “I haven’t looked into the Supreme Court’s abortion rights and gun rights rulings, but I invite your comments.”

    Of course Mr. Sailer has kept up with their rulings and legal rationale. But by making this claim, he is able to continue to purposely avoid making commentary on this and other matters of national importance, lest he face the potential loss in mammon.

    Of course, it if a glorious day. With the overturning of a mechanism that effectively culled the herd, Democratic vote banks will be overflowing with new future voters demanding gimmedats and free stuff. More mystery meat infant mouths will be fed by way of federal welfare checks. Prisons will be opening up their already overcrowded cells with an assortment of criminals. And white childless couples will be more inclined to adopt non-white crack babies to Dane them from a life of misery and despair.

    What a glorious day indeed!

  228. The concealed carry decision is even more powerful than advertised…Clarence Thomas’s opinion strongly suggests that any restriction of firearm rights is presumptively unConstitutional…

  229. @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson


    Well in theory it means that cities like NYC can’t deny you a carry permit if you qualify.

    Currently they only give out permits to the wealthy and connected.
     
    True, but the current facts on the ground are much worse for the city, Massachusetts, and based on what I heard of the new post-Uvalde New York state bill the whole state as well.

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun? That's May Issue in all of the above, and close to No Issue in NYC, where there were only 60,000 licenses each for handgun and long gun possession outstanding as of a few years ago when the lists with names, addresses etc. were released to the media.

    The problem is that liberal cities and states can still play games with the permits by adding arbitrary requirements.
     
    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they've been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald. Which I'm not betting on given how much they hate this issue, and don't want it filling up their calendar compared to the normal globohomo and First Amendment cases (remember that the same court is enforcing World War T on the nation).

    Part of what resulted in Bruen was Thomas getting increasingly scathing about how they'd fill their docket with the latter while ignoring every firearms related Second Amendment case except for a near nothingburger pertaining to where NYC residents should go for target practice. Which if the city hadn't caved wouldn't have normally resulted in a sweeping decision, like the lower court one which struck the NY SAFE act restriction on magazine capacities from the normal ten to seven.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun?

    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.

    Getting a permit to conceal carry is nearly impossible unless you are wealthy or connected.

    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they’ve been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald.

    It’s an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @John Johnson


    It’s an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.
     
    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don't try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Eric Novak

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson


    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.
     
    I recently saw in an article about Bruen some figures for outstanding permits for those limited purposes. One was 17,000, the other much smaller, 3,000 if I recall correctly, and more vaguely I recall the former was for individuals, the latter for businesses. This is in a city with 8.8 million people. I submit to you that your "basically" is effectively nothing except for the fortunate few who in whatever ways managed to jump through the city's infamous hoops.

    Something else I keep repeating is that Soviet Georgia back when the USSR was falling trusted more people in its capital to own guns than NYC, and I'll repeat my point, until everyone who's not a felon etc. in the city can legally own a handgun through a Shall Issue license (or better, but let's not get enthusiastic about a place with a severe gun control regime that's more than a century old and is so notorious I've seen it used in black and white movies) it's irrelevant if the people in general can also legally carry it concealed.

    BTW, estimates of illegally owned guns in the city range up into a couple million.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  230. @anonymous
    Numerous tweets from deranged lefties LITERALLY talking about killing, murdering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, especially given Thomas' separate opinion recommending to revisit gay marriage etc decisions as well

    Screenshots of a number of those troubling tweets, collected in the image below

    But given the 'who' and the 'whom', the feds maybe aren't rushing out to round up lefties, regardless

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1656108628206.jpg

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @Corvinus, @AndrewR

    Do you feel the same way regarding the nut jobs who wanted to murder local election officials who had investigated voter fraud claims and found no evidence in the 2020 election because they felt Trump won?

  231. @Jonathan Mason
    @Almost Missouri


    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.
     
    Indeed. It will take a while for the fallout from this SC decision to work its way through. Most people seem to prefer some access to abortion in the first trimester, access to later abortion in special cases, and prohibition about 24 weeks, and perhaps many states will eventually go with that route.

    The problem is that even within states there will be differences of opinion, because no single state has 100% of its population believing in one point of view. There will be large majorities in favor of abortion restriction in some states, and there will be small majorities in others, and no majority in many more.

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    Most likely American ingenuity will develop strategies in which there will be many loopholes to exploit, and mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them--at a huge price with payment plans, of course--and a profitable new norm will take over.

    The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Almost Missouri, @epebble

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    All law is normative and therefore based on belief. And all belief is de facto religious. So all law is religious. The only question is which religion.

    Furthermore, this English public schoolboy notion of being “on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges” is … well, there’s a lot wrong with it, philosophically, legally, jurisdictionally, and aesthetically, but mostly it’s just cringe, as the kids say. Since you’re not American and don’t understand America, I won’t trouble you with the rest of it.

    mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over. The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    This is … hyperbolic. In fact, yesterday’s ruling will make almost no difference in actual abortions. By a weird coincidence, states that dislike abortion already don’t have abortion providers:

    Women in those states already go elsewhere to get abortions, no leftwing fever dream of “Underground Railroads” required.

    At bottom, these rulings are not really about abortions or even about guns. They are about restoring a semblance of Constitutional order.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    Okay, that’s an amusing (though inaccurate, see above) jest. Maybe you’re starting to understand the current regime a bit after all.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    Not really, see the above map. There is however a near perfect correlation between the political party that was pro-slavery and is pro-abortion.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    Here is an article which draws parallels between today's red states and the Confederacy:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/06/red-and-blue-state-divide-is-growing-michael-podhorzer-newsletter/661377/

    And the article acknowledges that yesterday's segregationist Democrats are today's conservative Republicans - Johnson flipped the table with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.

    It's funny that the Left accuses the Right of what they would secretly like to do. It's called projection.

    Replies: @Mr. Grey, @JR Ewing

    , @epebble
    @Almost Missouri

    This article has an uncanny mid nineteenth century feel to it:

    Chasm opens between states over abortion pills and out-of-state care

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chasm-opens-between-states-over-abortion-pills-and-out-of-state-care/ar-AAYRJwN

  232. @That Would Be Telling
    @Corn


    Could someone kindly explain to me the impact of Thursday’s gun ruling?

    [...]

    What exactly are the ramifications of the gun ruling?
     

    For New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen which it looks like we might start calling Bruen, the first thing to note is that unless you live in New York, and maybe not even then, it's simply not worth paying attention to unless and until we discover if the Supreme Court is going to play Lucy and the football for another dozen years like they did after MacDonald.

    A decision that's not enforced is entirely worthless when it comes to the facts on the ground, and unlike abortion or First Amendment cases this is very much a topic the Supreme Court as a whole doesn't want to deal with, full stop. If this decision was a one time gift to Thomas who was getting increasingly scathing about that twelve years when the lower courts ran free and all the relevant ones except for Illinois always sided with state governments....

    But if you want a reading now, the best TL;DR I've found so far is Eugene Volokh's.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Volokh’s essay is basically a template for how the Leftist state governments are going to push the ruling:

    1. This right can be limited to the extent that there is a historical tradition of limitation

    Dig up obscure historical parallels and claim that your new law is the same as the restriction that they had in Massachusetts in 1826 and no one ever complained about it back then.

    The right can also be limited by regulations that impose only a modest burden on law-abiding people’s ability to defend themselves.

    Push the limits of what is “modest” . Gun ownership can be limited to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”. Are you white and have you ever had a traffic ticket or not paid your taxes? Maybe you are not a responsible citizen.

    Restrictions on carrying in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”:

    What are other “sensitive places”? Churches? Shopping malls? Stadiums? Public recreational facilities? Bars and clubs? Anyplace where alcohol is sold (supermarkets)? I could think of a pretty long list of “sensitive places” which would include just about everywhere people actually go.

    nondiscretionary licensing restrictions, unless they involve “lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees”

    How long is lengthy and how high a fee is exorbitant?

    Restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill:

    How do we know that you are not among the millions of white Americans who are among the undiagnosed mentally ill? Perhaps you need a mental health screening before we give you this permit? We see here in your dossier that during your divorce proceeding your ex-wife said that you had on multiple occasions threatened to “send her to the moon”, Mr. Kramden. Is not support for Trump and his false election fraud claims itself a sign of mental illness?

    Restrictions on machineguns and other “dangerous and unusual” weapons—

    What is dangerous and unusual? AR-15 type guns? Large magazines, etc.?

    And so on. You could pass a law with a dozen booby-traps in it like this and spend years in court (and remember that many of the lower courts and appeals courts are dominated by Leftists) arguing over stuff like this.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack D

    Jack, none of your above FUD speculation matters, because those blue municipalities are now stuck. That’s why Dem pols in the newly affected areas are impotently hopping mad about the ruling. Public property like subways, parks, and streets, and private property like stores, restaurants, etc. etc. are places thousands and thousands of newly unencumbered citizens are now going to be legally carrying concealed pistols.

    Everyday private establishments, taxis, etc. can post cute “No Weapons” signs but these are easily ignored unless your local Starbucks or Walgreens is also willing to put up guarded metal-detector entry points—not bloody likely (they’re not even stopping blatant thieves, LOL). But nightclubs and museums, etc. can still enforce, if they want, strict no-weapons policies due to inherently stricter physical entry/exit controls.

  233. @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun?

    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.

    Getting a permit to conceal carry is nearly impossible unless you are wealthy or connected.

    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they’ve been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald.

    It's an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @That Would Be Telling

    It’s an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.

    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don’t try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jonathan Mason

    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don’t try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In some areas like DC it is a felony. In LA it is only a misdemeanor though.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Eric Novak
    @Jonathan Mason

    Chicago here-the problems for using a concealed weapon for self-defense lead to the cops giving your gun back to you. That’s the consequence for using a concealed weapon legally.

  234. @Twinkie
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Someone should check to make sure he’s not having a stroke.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I’m sure the bathhouse attendants are on it.

    • LOL: Adam Smith, MEH 0910
  235. @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.
     
    All law is normative and therefore based on belief. And all belief is de facto religious. So all law is religious. The only question is which religion.

    Furthermore, this English public schoolboy notion of being "on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges" is ... well, there's a lot wrong with it, philosophically, legally, jurisdictionally, and aesthetically, but mostly it's just cringe, as the kids say. Since you're not American and don't understand America, I won't trouble you with the rest of it.

    mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over. The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.
     
    This is ... hyperbolic. In fact, yesterday's ruling will make almost no difference in actual abortions. By a weird coincidence, states that dislike abortion already don't have abortion providers:
    https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/720/90/sites/default/files/20220507_GDP205_0.jpg
    Women in those states already go elsewhere to get abortions, no leftwing fever dream of "Underground Railroads" required.

    At bottom, these rulings are not really about abortions or even about guns. They are about restoring a semblance of Constitutional order.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.
     
    Okay, that's an amusing (though inaccurate, see above) jest. Maybe you're starting to understand the current regime a bit after all.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.
     
    Not really, see the above map. There is however a near perfect correlation between the political party that was pro-slavery and is pro-abortion.

    Replies: @Jack D, @epebble

    Here is an article which draws parallels between today’s red states and the Confederacy:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/06/red-and-blue-state-divide-is-growing-michael-podhorzer-newsletter/661377/

    And the article acknowledges that yesterday’s segregationist Democrats are today’s conservative Republicans – Johnson flipped the table with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.

    It’s funny that the Left accuses the Right of what they would secretly like to do. It’s called projection.

    • Replies: @Mr. Grey
    @Jack D


    the article acknowledges that yesterday’s segregationist Democrats are today’s conservative Republicans – Johnson flipped the table the 1964 Civil Rightwiths Act.
     
    You see this nonsense frequently in any left-wing article about the history of the Democrats and/or civil rights. The sheepishly admit Dems were bad in the past, but hey, things flipped like the magnetic pole in 1965 so now Republicans are bad. They will never mention it was Eisenhower who promoted the 1st civil rights bill in the 1950s and all three bills had vigorous Democrat oppostition and majority Republican support. The Democrats continue in the present with the Plantation politics of making sure their negroes are loyal and villifying the po white trash.
    , @JR Ewing
    @Jack D


    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.
     
    I figured this out myself about a year ago when the first rumblings of "14th Amendment disqualification!" began to be heard. Up until then, I, like most normal Americans thought the use of the word, "insurrection" was an exaggeration and kind of inappropriate and being misused for a dumb protest that got a little out of hand, but they - including the press - chose that word specifically, for disqualification reasons. And it has become so commonly used now and people are so used to it, that when they finally go through with it, most Americans will see it as logical, seeing that there was an insurrection after all.

    I'm not sure I agree that they intend to go after the whole "right" with it, but they definitely are going after Trump and anyone else they can tie to Jan 6. And once these hearings are over, Congress, probably during the lame duck session at the end of this year, is eventually going to pass a law declaring these people ineligible for office. Even Sinema and Manchin will go along with this and they'll nuke the filibuster to do it. I'm not really sure the new congress next year will even care about reversing it.

    Then, all they need is 2-3 swing states to decide at the last minute to go along with the new law and keep Trump off the ballot and by the time it plays out in the courts and this nonsense is overturned, it will be too late. He'll have to wait 4 more years and get 4 years older and the dems will probably have some other trick up their sleeves to consolidate power even further by then.

    The left is always playing the long game.

    As meaningless and dumb and small as the Jan 6 incident was, it was a major strategic blunder by the right.

    Replies: @Eric Novak

  236. @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    Before we even get to the question of May Issue/No Issue vs. Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, are you even allowed to own a gun, long gun let along handgun?

    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.

    Getting a permit to conceal carry is nearly impossible unless you are wealthy or connected.

    As we saw with D.C. after Heller. So it again comes down to what the local Federal courts do, and how fast (they’ve been very slow in D.C.), and if the Supreme Court deigns to consider any adverse decisions in the next dozen years as they refused to do after MacDonald.

    It's an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @That Would Be Telling

    You can basically get a permit to own a handgun in NYC. But you can only have it at your license address (can be a business) or take it to a range. It is easier to get a shotgun for home defense but it still requires a permit.

    I recently saw in an article about Bruen some figures for outstanding permits for those limited purposes. One was 17,000, the other much smaller, 3,000 if I recall correctly, and more vaguely I recall the former was for individuals, the latter for businesses. This is in a city with 8.8 million people. I submit to you that your “basically” is effectively nothing except for the fortunate few who in whatever ways managed to jump through the city’s infamous hoops.

    Something else I keep repeating is that Soviet Georgia back when the USSR was falling trusted more people in its capital to own guns than NYC, and I’ll repeat my point, until everyone who’s not a felon etc. in the city can legally own a handgun through a Shall Issue license (or better, but let’s not get enthusiastic about a place with a severe gun control regime that’s more than a century old and is so notorious I’ve seen it used in black and white movies) it’s irrelevant if the people in general can also legally carry it concealed.

    BTW, estimates of illegally owned guns in the city range up into a couple million.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    I recently saw in an article about Bruen some figures for outstanding permits for those limited purposes. One was 17,000, the other much smaller, 3,000 if I recall correctly, and more vaguely I recall the former was for individuals, the latter for businesses. This is in a city with 8.8 million people. I submit to you that your “basically” is effectively nothing except for the fortunate few who in whatever ways managed to jump through the city’s infamous hoops.

    The NYC concealed carry permit is extremely difficult to acquire.

    The gun at home permit is not, especially if it is a shotgun. There is paperwork and a delay but it is entirely achievable by anyone with a clean record.

    https://www.nyfirearms.com/threads/rifle-shotgun-permit-for-nyc.47363/

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  237. @John Johnson
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    If Blacks are doing most of the shootings with illegal guns then why should we have strict licensing? Why would the burden increase on the population not responsible?

    What we need is reasonable sentencing for illegal gun possession but Bantu fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Jack D

    What is needed is large enhancements (which are actually enforced) for the use of a gun in commission of a crime. You have a dozen guns (licensed or not) sitting in your gun cabinet at home? No problem. You use a gun to hold up a 7-11? 20 years. The problem is not gun ownership – millions of Americans own guns and always have. The problem is gun USAGE.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    What is needed is large enhancements (which are actually enforced) for the use of a gun in commission of a crime. You have a dozen guns (licensed or not) sitting in your gun cabinet at home? No problem. You use a gun to hold up a 7-11? 20 years.

    In Democrat cities they won't even get a year for armed car jacking. Not even 6 months if they are under 18.

    They aren't enforcing existing laws because the prisons are filled with Blacks.

  238. Federalism is one thing that has kept the US from the constant coups and civil wars that plague Latin America.

  239. @Jonathan Mason
    @Almost Missouri


    As of today, it is capable. Contact your state legislature for details.

    Prior to today, it was only capable of whatever five Beltway people in black robes decreed.
     
    Indeed. It will take a while for the fallout from this SC decision to work its way through. Most people seem to prefer some access to abortion in the first trimester, access to later abortion in special cases, and prohibition about 24 weeks, and perhaps many states will eventually go with that route.

    The problem is that even within states there will be differences of opinion, because no single state has 100% of its population believing in one point of view. There will be large majorities in favor of abortion restriction in some states, and there will be small majorities in others, and no majority in many more.

    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.

    Most likely American ingenuity will develop strategies in which there will be many loopholes to exploit, and mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them--at a huge price with payment plans, of course--and a profitable new norm will take over.

    The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.

    In the end the women most affected will probably be those who are in the custody of the state as juveniles, or as adult prisoners, who will not be able to get abortions unless they are in federal prisons. This will prove rather expensive for those states which have to provide prenatal and obstetric care for the offspring, but presumably those right-to-life states will also have many willing parents to adopt any unwanted children.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Almost Missouri, @epebble

    well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over.

    I live in Oregon; our governor and legislature have already agreed to welcome any abortion seeker from states where it is illegal. For us, since Washington and California are both permissive, it would mean welcoming any Idahoan at the border and offering service, freely if needed.

    California and New York already have well developed infrastructure for Birth tourism where out of staters visit to holiday and give birth. The same infrastructure can be used to provide abortion services to middle class and above residents from other states.

    https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/california-washington-and-oregon-pledge-to-protect-abortion-patients-from-other-states/

    https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2018/11/oregon-abortion-laws-bring-in-out-of-state-residents.html

    • Replies: @Random Anonymous
    @epebble

    Give us your sluts, your whores, your knocked-up asses yearning to be child-free...

    Replies: @epebble

  240. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    Here is an article which draws parallels between today's red states and the Confederacy:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/06/red-and-blue-state-divide-is-growing-michael-podhorzer-newsletter/661377/

    And the article acknowledges that yesterday's segregationist Democrats are today's conservative Republicans - Johnson flipped the table with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.

    It's funny that the Left accuses the Right of what they would secretly like to do. It's called projection.

    Replies: @Mr. Grey, @JR Ewing

    the article acknowledges that yesterday’s segregationist Democrats are today’s conservative Republicans – Johnson flipped the table the 1964 Civil Rightwiths Act.

    You see this nonsense frequently in any left-wing article about the history of the Democrats and/or civil rights. The sheepishly admit Dems were bad in the past, but hey, things flipped like the magnetic pole in 1965 so now Republicans are bad. They will never mention it was Eisenhower who promoted the 1st civil rights bill in the 1950s and all three bills had vigorous Democrat oppostition and majority Republican support. The Democrats continue in the present with the Plantation politics of making sure their negroes are loyal and villifying the po white trash.

  241. @Redneck farmer
    @michael droy

    There's a reason we told you people to f*ck off in 1776.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mr. Anon, @Dream

    American conservatives are funny.

  242. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    Here is an article which draws parallels between today's red states and the Confederacy:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/06/red-and-blue-state-divide-is-growing-michael-podhorzer-newsletter/661377/

    And the article acknowledges that yesterday's segregationist Democrats are today's conservative Republicans - Johnson flipped the table with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.

    It's funny that the Left accuses the Right of what they would secretly like to do. It's called projection.

    Replies: @Mr. Grey, @JR Ewing

    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.

    I figured this out myself about a year ago when the first rumblings of “14th Amendment disqualification!” began to be heard. Up until then, I, like most normal Americans thought the use of the word, “insurrection” was an exaggeration and kind of inappropriate and being misused for a dumb protest that got a little out of hand, but they – including the press – chose that word specifically, for disqualification reasons. And it has become so commonly used now and people are so used to it, that when they finally go through with it, most Americans will see it as logical, seeing that there was an insurrection after all.

    I’m not sure I agree that they intend to go after the whole “right” with it, but they definitely are going after Trump and anyone else they can tie to Jan 6. And once these hearings are over, Congress, probably during the lame duck session at the end of this year, is eventually going to pass a law declaring these people ineligible for office. Even Sinema and Manchin will go along with this and they’ll nuke the filibuster to do it. I’m not really sure the new congress next year will even care about reversing it.

    Then, all they need is 2-3 swing states to decide at the last minute to go along with the new law and keep Trump off the ballot and by the time it plays out in the courts and this nonsense is overturned, it will be too late. He’ll have to wait 4 more years and get 4 years older and the dems will probably have some other trick up their sleeves to consolidate power even further by then.

    The left is always playing the long game.

    As meaningless and dumb and small as the Jan 6 incident was, it was a major strategic blunder by the right.

    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    @JR Ewing

    No one gives a shit about Jan. 6 either. It’s as irrelevant to the general public as the reversal of Roe.

  243. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Batman

    Which is the case. Given the US has a large population of people who can’t be trusted with guns (and the founders did not intend for blacks to own guns), the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria. The gun fetishists will never let this happen of course.

    Replies: @Batman, @Prester John, @John Johnson, @Joe Stalin

    the US should adopt reasonable gun ownership restrictions (basically licensing) on the lines of Switzerland or Austria.

    And how has that turned out for the English speaking countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, People’s Republic of New York, Grand Duchy of Massachusetts?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    Next up, Oh Canada!

    TRUST ME! Yell the government gun control advocates.

    WTF for?

  244. @Anon7
    Regarding the downfall of Roe, I’d say this clinches the fall elections for the democrats. They’ll ride abortion roughshod across all possible criticisms of the Biden administration, Afghanistan, inflation, immigration all forgotten by the 95% of traditional media and all of social media, which they own.

    Oh, and don’t forget the ongoing trial and crucifixion and burial, and the digging up and recrucifying of Donald Trump and everyone he ever met.

    As far as guns are concerned, if Kamala Harris buys a rifle and threatens an abortion clinic with it, she’s a shoo-in in 2024.

    Replies: @AKAHorace, @Anonymous, @AKAHorace, @Rooster16, @Bernard, @JimDandy, @AnotherDad, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    I think the electoral benefits of the Dobbs ruling are pretty minor for Democrats.

    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, “You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court.”

    How likely is that? Not very.

    The very very very WHITE chicks who are protesting now wouldn’t vote for a Republican even if their lives depended on it. I move in some of these circles, and believe me, passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern, particularly for boomers and genX-ers and other post first wave feminists. They think Republicans are troglodytes anyway.

    And remember the news cycle moves fast. This will pass.

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty. And if Ukraine effectively loses the war and/or surrenders by November, it will be another demoralizing blow to the deep state. It could be an electoral catastrophe of monumental proportions for Democrats.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia


    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, “You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court.”

    [...]

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty.
     
    One thing I think it's important to realize for those of us who don't regularly fill up a gas tank is that the "economic news" of doubled from Trump and headed higher due to refinery capacity limitations gasoline prices and the sanction against importing Russian distillates like gasoline and Diesel is that this economic news hits you square in the face every week or more. There's nothing like unending repetition, including having to constantly economize elsewhere to keep your car running and family fed to hammer in "It's the economy, stupid!" And I still claim slightly seriously that Bacon Riots might be in our future, but not before November.

    If we see "Biden" attempt to capitulate on the distillate importation ban ... well, overall I have to say the 2022 election will have the most moving parts of any in my memory starting with 1972 when I was just coming of political age. Including a number which cut against a Republican landslide, like this week's gun control betrayal.

    Or going further, my interpretation McConnell is working hard to throw the Senate election to avoid responsibility for the next two years, of which that bill is perhaps the first really clear sign. Or thinking harder, maybe he's so confident of victory, he's old enough to also remember the 1970s and Carter, he's willing to take the usual GOPe tack of risking snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Anon7
    @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    "... passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern."

    You make good points; it's not that I don't want Biden and the Dems to take the heat for the bad problems they've created.

    Taking the larger view, I think that the "abortion issue" was originally created to divide the nation, and the strategy has worked amazingly well. We'll see what happens in August-November. I say that because now, that's when the voting happens.

    That's another big story that is uncovered, the shift that will take place when it requires no more effort to vote than to mark a form and leave it for the postman. The abortion issue will mobilize all these White girls to go house to house to make sure all those ballots are mailed in.

    As I pointed out in another comment, Biden has already sent emails telling Dems that their rights have been taken away, and it's time to vote in more Dems. I've also seen "news" stories that claim to "predict" that changes in abortion law will devastate the economy.

  245. @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    Agreed, but that is somewhere around 24 weeks. Twinkie is arguing for 0 weeks. That seems extreme to me, not to mention impractical given modern technology such as morning after pill. Even contraceptive pills would be illegal under Twinkie's extreme view since they work by preventing the fertilized egg from emulating in the womb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy

    Yeah, I was butting in to point out that at some point there is absolutely no denying that it’s a life. And, on that note, in fact, “Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is “viable,” or able to survive outside the womb.” Might seem like splitting hairs, but, again, it’s a life.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    So is a fertilized apple seed the same as an apple tree? An egg the same thing as a chicken? Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.

    Like many things in law there is a line drawing issue. Philosophers and religious zealots are not good at line drawing but lawmakers who live in the real world do this all the time. How fast is "too fast"? How can it be that 70 mph is not "too fast" but 71 is? Because you gotta draw lines somewhere in order to live in the real world.

    1 day is too soon (for most sane people - as I mentioned before this would make the Pill illegal) and after 24 weeks is too late. A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus. At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby. And indeed this is where most civilized countries draw the line.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @PhysicistDave, @Dumbo, @Twinkie

  246. @Jonathan Mason
    @John Johnson


    It’s an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.
     
    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don't try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Eric Novak

    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don’t try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In some areas like DC it is a felony. In LA it is only a misdemeanor though.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson



    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.
     
    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.
     
    All bad advice. If you have to use a concealed weapon, unless you think you can avoid dealing with the authorities forever which is increasingly unlikely as more and more cheap cameras record things, including those wielded in smartphones, you need to be as pure as the driven snow like Rittenhouse to have the best chance of dealing with the really serious felony charges. Which are a lot more likely if you're breaking the law to begin with. Not to mention it's imperative to be the first to contact the authorities, in practice that person is by default the good guy, whereas fleeing is taken as a sign of guilt.

    And if they can't get you on those, they'll certainly go for the maximum punishment for the carry crime, plus you'll probably lose in civil court as Bernhard Goetz did. This also removes the possibility of prepaid concealed carry "insurance," I recommend CCW Safe but there are too few data points to know if they'll be a good bet in the long term.

    And if your self-defense becomes at all notorious, or in the situation where the authorities are so anti-gun you can only do a fake business thing, they'll put you under a microscope and probably charge you with additional felonies for the fraud you actually did commit.

    Seriously, seriously learn about this stuff. The old, perhaps original classic is Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme and I'm sure it's still useful as will most of what he's written. I also highly recommend the first Stressfire book, his safety video, and his old The Truth About Self-Protection which covers just about every relevant topic, it for example first told me about Abloy, probably the word's top lock manufacturer.

    The most modern one and it's pretty good is the third edition of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen by Branca but its state by state tables of law and more critically case law are now six or more years out of date (BIG WARNING: judges like to nullify white line statutory law). OK, let me shill some more for CCW Safe, they put out a constant stream of media in all forms to help you and them avoid having to use them for real, or keeping yourself on the straight and narrow so you'll win your case if it goes into the courts.

    All that I've examined in detail, which is only written stuff, is of high quality, their top legal mind was the lead attorney for George Zimmerman, and a lot if not most of it is based on actual cases, but they also have lots of general good advice and discussion of all types.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  247. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    What is needed is large enhancements (which are actually enforced) for the use of a gun in commission of a crime. You have a dozen guns (licensed or not) sitting in your gun cabinet at home? No problem. You use a gun to hold up a 7-11? 20 years. The problem is not gun ownership - millions of Americans own guns and always have. The problem is gun USAGE.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    What is needed is large enhancements (which are actually enforced) for the use of a gun in commission of a crime. You have a dozen guns (licensed or not) sitting in your gun cabinet at home? No problem. You use a gun to hold up a 7-11? 20 years.

    In Democrat cities they won’t even get a year for armed car jacking. Not even 6 months if they are under 18.

    They aren’t enforcing existing laws because the prisons are filled with Blacks.

  248. @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore. NYC and the Adirondacks are like two different worlds. Virginia was split into 2 states. Maybe if NY was split you could get 2 more Republican senators from upstate.

    It's very common around the country to have blue cities in red states - these sometimes tip the states blue due to the large population of the cities (and maybe a little urban vote fraud). Again, maybe it's time to have city-states that are separate from the rest of their state because they don't have a lot in common anymore.

    A lot of people here seem to be in favor of a national divorce. I think that would be disastrous. But I'm not against having separate bedrooms under the same roof. This would also entail Washington not forcing choices on either the red or the blue states depending on who controlled Congress and the White House that week.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s almost as if the city mice really are different than the country mice. ☮

  249. @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Gee, talk about scratching and clawing for tiny exceptions

    Ugh. That's what you call the legal slaughter of babies? I'm always shocked when I'm reminded that people like you really exist.

    Replies: @The Real World

    Ugh. That deflection was a fail.

    If you’re so convinced that large numbers of abortions occur in the later weeks of pregnancy because the mother is “depressed”…then produce the statistics proving it.

    Otherwise, you’re simply making shit up and expect to be taken seriously. Another fail.

    You also didn’t answer the question posed. More avoidance?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    You're a truly sickening human being.

    "It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other. However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships."

    "A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

    Replies: @The Real World

  250. @Prester John
    @Mike Tre

    "...the act itself is not a right."

    The "act itself"--is infanticide.

    Which goes under another name: murder.

    (Don't tell that to the progs though. It would be hurtful to them and might well constitute a microaggression).

    Replies: @jb

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a “person” under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @jb


    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a “person” under the law?
     
    Yes, they do, though of course they know perfectly well that a fertilized egg is not really a person. They want to maintain the fiction that it is because they want to control women.

    They blame abortion for their inability to find a wife. (Yes, I'm serious!)

    Of course, the funny thing is, they might be right, but not for the reasons they think. The inability to pump and dump with abortion as a backstop may well encourage men to marry earlier rather than leading on and using various women throughout their twenties.

    Heck, with Roe v. Wade out of the way, women might be able to cut fathers out of their children's lives altogether. At common law, unwed fathers didn't have to pay child support, but they didn't have any rights either. If the father didn't marry the mother, she was free to marry a man who wanted her child and give him all the legal rights of fatherhood. She could also give the child up to her own family members for adoption and the father had no say so in the matter. The rights of unwed fathers are totally dependent on the same substantive due process cases as the right to abortion.
    , @Gamecock
    @jb


    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a “person” under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.
     
    Abortion is an anomaly legally in my mind.

    First, understand liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government.

    It is self evident to me that aborting a fertilized egg before it has even implanted in the uterus is fine. I don't care. It is also self evident that killing a baby at full-term 9 months is wrong.

    The problem is, drawing the line will perforce be arbitrary. Any selected period is simply arbitrary.

    Abortion is that very odd case where government must be arbitrary, and it is not tyranny.

    Replies: @jb, @Redman

  251. @Achmed E. Newman
    @The Real World


    That is why Doctors estimate when a pregnancy began.
     
    No, that's not why. They estimate it from what they see because they don't want to go asking the woman exactly when she had sex over the last few weeks. Conception happened one of those times.

    Replies: @The Real World

    OMG, see I could laugh except it’s too freaking sad, really.

    Alfred E. Newman (typo intended) – declares that conception occurred when she had sex.

    AMERICA? Do you see the problem we have? Even adults of mature ages don’t understand the basics of reproduction. It is just astonishing. There should be a difficult pass/fail test about it when people go to get their drivers license.

    Conception takes place DAYS later, Alfie. It could be 3 days later, it could be 5 days after sex before conception has completed. THAT is why Docs estimate the pregnancy start. Conception does not occur moments after you make your special contribution. How magical! Smh…..

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @The Real World

    High School biology was a long time ago, we spent the time drawing penises in various places on the illustrations, and they didn't have HowStuffWorks.com back then. So, you are right about the doctors, but, yeah, it could be just 7 hours later.

    Lucky for us, it all went well even without a refresher course and without the internet.

    Sorry for my error. What does "Smh" mean, "so much horniness"?

    .

    PS: My wife "wasn't so sure" about her whole pregnancy thing that first day or two. I was having none of that. She'd be ashamed of her former self at this point, were I to bring it up, which I never would. It's unthinkable at this point.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @The Real World

  252. the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers because — just like you! — they’re shitty youtube-tier amateur historians

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/bruen-supreme-court-guns-mockery-originalism.html

    • Replies: @Curle
    @kahein

    You cite to an Slate article from a non-lawyer much less legal scholar pointing to Reconstruction era standards and British fourteenth practices (but not contemporaneous understandings) argued by the defendants with no reference to the court’s questions of the defendants, their answers, or rebuttals from plaintiffs. All, apparently in favor of the argument that ‘there’s lots of history before and since the founding so you can’t rely on contemporaneous understandings’.

    Dunning-Kruger “I’m as smart as an lawyer” guys like you and the author of the article you cite on the internet are such bores. But, at least Slate knows their audience.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @kahein

    Note this headline on the same site:


    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @epebble

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @kahein


    the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers
     
    So is it safe to say you’re squarely in the “Hoes Mad” category?
  253. @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Fercrissakes, it is not known when conception occurs.

    When a BABY can live outside the womb, every single non-retarded person alive knows damned well it's a human life.

    Replies: @Jack D, @The Real World

    Were you drunk last night, Jim?

    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.

    It is simply nuts how uniformed people are about basic reproduction and how emotionally crazy they get about the topic and their own ignorance of it! That issue can be solved but, most don’t care to learn the facts and prefer their made-up ideas about it.

    Houston? Big problem….

    • Troll: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.
     
    Nevertheless, the fetus is perfectly viable within the womb. The individuals responsible for its existence had better have a good excuse for removing it.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @The Real World

    , @JimDandy
    @The Real World

    Just taking every opportunity to remind you of the fact you want to brush off. Babies are being slaughtered, troll.

  254. @John Johnson
    @Jonathan Mason

    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don’t try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In some areas like DC it is a felony. In LA it is only a misdemeanor though.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.

    All bad advice. If you have to use a concealed weapon, unless you think you can avoid dealing with the authorities forever which is increasingly unlikely as more and more cheap cameras record things, including those wielded in smartphones, you need to be as pure as the driven snow like Rittenhouse to have the best chance of dealing with the really serious felony charges. Which are a lot more likely if you’re breaking the law to begin with. Not to mention it’s imperative to be the first to contact the authorities, in practice that person is by default the good guy, whereas fleeing is taken as a sign of guilt.

    And if they can’t get you on those, they’ll certainly go for the maximum punishment for the carry crime, plus you’ll probably lose in civil court as Bernhard Goetz did. This also removes the possibility of prepaid concealed carry “insurance,” I recommend CCW Safe but there are too few data points to know if they’ll be a good bet in the long term.

    And if your self-defense becomes at all notorious, or in the situation where the authorities are so anti-gun you can only do a fake business thing, they’ll put you under a microscope and probably charge you with additional felonies for the fraud you actually did commit.

    Seriously, seriously learn about this stuff. The old, perhaps original classic is Ayoob’s In the Gravest Extreme and I’m sure it’s still useful as will most of what he’s written. I also highly recommend the first Stressfire book, his safety video, and his old The Truth About Self-Protection which covers just about every relevant topic, it for example first told me about Abloy, probably the word’s top lock manufacturer.

    The most modern one and it’s pretty good is the third edition of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen by Branca but its state by state tables of law and more critically case law are now six or more years out of date (BIG WARNING: judges like to nullify white line statutory law). OK, let me shill some more for CCW Safe, they put out a constant stream of media in all forms to help you and them avoid having to use them for real, or keeping yourself on the straight and narrow so you’ll win your case if it goes into the courts.

    All that I’ve examined in detail, which is only written stuff, is of high quality, their top legal mind was the lead attorney for George Zimmerman, and a lot if not most of it is based on actual cases, but they also have lots of general good advice and discussion of all types.

    • Troll: Eric Novak
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    And if your self-defense becomes at all notorious, or in the situation where the authorities are so anti-gun you can only do a fake business thing

    You start a fake security business.

    You get the permit.

    What are you afraid of? The authorities finding out your business is a flop? They aren't going to audit your business after a self-defense case and even if they did you still wouldn't be breaking the law.

    It is the local authority that granted the permit. There isn't a requirement that you have a successful and thriving business with verified clients. If you met the requirements then there is nothing to worry about.

    I started a security business and it hasn't gone well.

    That is all you have to say.

    Do you have any idea of how many losing businesses the wealthy create to get around taxes? It's called a tax sink. They create a business in a small town for the purpose of having a loss to take against capital gains.

    It isn't a crime or fraud to have a lousy business. It's completely legal and half the stores you see in small towns that don't even get $50 a day in revenue are tax sinks. That's how they stay open. It's a planned loss and perfectly legal. Even the large corps do it. They create a shell company to absorb losses or debt.

    Replies: @Random Anonymous

  255. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    At common law, abortion was not “baby killing” until the “quickening” when you could feel the baby kick at around 16 weeks.
     
    Consider the state of medicine, and biology, at the time this was codified. This is the equivalent of leeches.


    https://www.sciencehistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/twitter_card/public/leechphysician.jpg?itok=52HbWmjt

    I think this is a fair balancing between the rights of the fetus, which at that point is not quite a baby, and the mother.
     
    What about the rights of the father? And of the brothers and sisters and grandparents? This is where rights-talk gets out-of-hand and is no longer useful.

    Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians for Life, saw right through this. The question is not about rights, but about obligation, incurred obligation. You created this "monster", now you take care of it. We already hold the father to this standard, at least on paper.

    Ironically, Doris Gordon was a Randian. It's the pro-choicers who generally hate Auntie Ayn who hold to her solipsistic sexual ethics.

    Replies: @Frau Katze

    Before modern medicine there was no way to end a pregnancy safely.

    The issue is completely modern. I challenge anyone to find the issue discussed before modern medicine made it safe.

    I definitely recall that there were no classmates dropping out of school due to pregnancy when I was in high school (graduated 1969).

    But there were whispers that a qualified doctor could carry out an abortion secretly. I’m not positive about these whispers though.

  256. @Anon7
    @AnotherDad

    Joe Biden just sent this email:


    Today, the Supreme Court expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people. They didn't limit it, they simply took it away…

    Now, with Roe gone, the health and lives of women in this nation are at risk.

    Let me be very clear and unambiguous. The only way we can secure the right to choose is for Congress to restore Roe v. Wade as federal law.

    This November, we must elect more senators and representatives who will fight back. We need to elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.
     

    Replies: @epebble, @AnotherDad

    Anon7 — no argument.

    Of course, Biden is saying that–anything to distract from his record–and the Parasite Party will try and run on that.

    I’m just saying, that while i think this does work against Republicans by providing this distraction, it is not going to work. The Supreme Court did not “outlaw abortion”. It put it back where it was before 1973–a ho-hum state law issue. And by the fall, most everyone who is actually “up for grabs” politically will understand that.

    In contrast, the Parasite Party’s “let’s print more money for more parasites!” extravaganza while slapping down energy production–treating all actual productive activity with contempt–offers the prospect of roaring inflation and recession. Not a winner.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @AnotherDad

    I’m hoping that Democrats are forced to face the facts of Joe Biden’s disastrous presidency this fall, and that the Republicans wind up with a majority in both houses of Congress.

    But I don’t think it will happen. The Left controls the media, and its narrative, and they’ve been very successful in controlling our nation, its policies and its politics, by fear.


    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    H.L. Mencken
     

  257. @Rosie
    @Bernard

    You are constitutionally illiterate. The Ninth Amendment:


    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
     
    Sincerely,

    the Founding Fathers

    Replies: @Bernard



    You are constitutionally illiterate. The Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Sincerely,

    the Founding Fathers

    Here’s a good article explaining why the Ninth Amendment isn’t the Swiss Army knife of the US Constitution and doesn’t allow the Supreme Court to find rights at it’s whim.

    https://i2i.org/understanding-the-constitution-why-biden-is-wrong-to-think-the-9th-amendment-protects-abortion/

    As a side note, I’ve often wondered why you frequently visit a gathering spot for those you have such low regard for. Many of your responses are ad hominem, rude attacks that come across petty and angry. Sadly, the internet’s anonymity gives some a license to indulge in their lesser selves. Perhaps that’s the case here.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Bernard


    Here’s a good article explaining why the Ninth Amendment isn’t the Swiss Army knife of the US Constitution and doesn’t allow the Supreme Court to find rights at it’s whim.
     
    That bullsh!t argument renders the 9th amendment superfluous (always a disfavored interpretation), and isn't historically accurate, anyway. The reason the 9th Amendment is in there is precisely to tule out the usual assumption that lists are exhaustive.

    As a side note, I’ve often wondered why you frequently visit a gathering spot for those you have such low regard for.
     
    Are you familiar with the history of the dissident right? Therein lies the answer to your question.
  258. @Anonymous
    And in Los Angeles tonight, heeeeeere come the beta males trying to impress the slutty gals who have friend-zoned them!

    https://twitter.com/ShotOn35mm/status/1540540280436232192?s=20&t=x829HxeNsH69JVbduhV9ZA

    Replies: @Carol

    Hey, it’s a serious problem when you can’t tell the gf “get an abortion, it’s legal…”.

    It’s 18+ years of child support at the very least.

  259. @kahein
    the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers because -- just like you! -- they're shitty youtube-tier amateur historians

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/bruen-supreme-court-guns-mockery-originalism.html

    Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    You cite to an Slate article from a non-lawyer much less legal scholar pointing to Reconstruction era standards and British fourteenth practices (but not contemporaneous understandings) argued by the defendants with no reference to the court’s questions of the defendants, their answers, or rebuttals from plaintiffs. All, apparently in favor of the argument that ‘there’s lots of history before and since the founding so you can’t rely on contemporaneous understandings’.

    Dunning-Kruger “I’m as smart as an lawyer” guys like you and the author of the article you cite on the internet are such bores. But, at least Slate knows their audience.

  260. @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @Anon7

    I think the electoral benefits of the Dobbs ruling are pretty minor for Democrats.

    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, "You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court."

    How likely is that? Not very.

    The very very very WHITE chicks who are protesting now wouldn't vote for a Republican even if their lives depended on it. I move in some of these circles, and believe me, passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern, particularly for boomers and genX-ers and other post first wave feminists. They think Republicans are troglodytes anyway.

    And remember the news cycle moves fast. This will pass.

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty. And if Ukraine effectively loses the war and/or surrenders by November, it will be another demoralizing blow to the deep state. It could be an electoral catastrophe of monumental proportions for Democrats.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Anon7

    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, “You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court.”

    […]

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty.

    One thing I think it’s important to realize for those of us who don’t regularly fill up a gas tank is that the “economic news” of doubled from Trump and headed higher due to refinery capacity limitations gasoline prices and the sanction against importing Russian distillates like gasoline and Diesel is that this economic news hits you square in the face every week or more. There’s nothing like unending repetition, including having to constantly economize elsewhere to keep your car running and family fed to hammer in “It’s the economy, stupid!” And I still claim slightly seriously that Bacon Riots might be in our future, but not before November.

    If we see “Biden” attempt to capitulate on the distillate importation ban … well, overall I have to say the 2022 election will have the most moving parts of any in my memory starting with 1972 when I was just coming of political age. Including a number which cut against a Republican landslide, like this week’s gun control betrayal.

    Or going further, my interpretation McConnell is working hard to throw the Senate election to avoid responsibility for the next two years, of which that bill is perhaps the first really clear sign. Or thinking harder, maybe he’s so confident of victory, he’s old enough to also remember the 1970s and Carter, he’s willing to take the usual GOPe tack of risking snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @That Would Be Telling


    the sanction against importing Russian distillates like gasoline and Diesel...
     
    and Stoli?


    https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F220305105445-stoli-rebrand-file-restricted.jpg

    Replies: @Wielgus

  261. @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore. NYC and the Adirondacks are like two different worlds. Virginia was split into 2 states. Maybe if NY was split you could get 2 more Republican senators from upstate.

    It's very common around the country to have blue cities in red states - these sometimes tip the states blue due to the large population of the cities (and maybe a little urban vote fraud). Again, maybe it's time to have city-states that are separate from the rest of their state because they don't have a lot in common anymore.

    A lot of people here seem to be in favor of a national divorce. I think that would be disastrous. But I'm not against having separate bedrooms under the same roof. This would also entail Washington not forcing choices on either the red or the blue states depending on who controlled Congress and the White House that week.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Reg Cæsar

    It may be that 50 states is not enough anymore.

    Oklahoma just became the 28th state to surpass the 1790 population of the whole country:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/states

    Connecticut was almost there at the turn of the century, then stalled. The Constitution State, once a tax haven like New Jersey, is paying for Griswold.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/connecticut-population

    Nine of the other original thirteen outnumber the Union at its birth.

  262. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D

    Well, I support liberals on this issue....

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-saturday/index.html

    Black women accounted for the highest percentage of abortions by women seeking the procedure in the US in 2019, receiving 38.4% of all abortions performed, according to data collected by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also had the highest abortion rate, 23.8 abortions per 1,000 women, the data shows. Hispanic women sought 21% of all abortions in 2019, the data indicates.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gcSFR7c4o

    Replies: @Jack D

    I fully agree. That is why the anti-abortion ideology (“preserve human life”) sounds wonderful in the abstract but not so wonderful when you apply it to the real world. More unwanted black babies are the last thing that we need. The imaginary baby who will be saved by these laws is a cute white kid who could have been adopted. The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    It’s even worse than these stats sound. As you make abortion more difficult it’s still not going to be a problem for affluent white women – they will work around the system. They would fly to Switzerland if they had to. But the poorer and blacker and less resourceful you are, the more likely you are just going to end up having the baby. So the marginal babies produced by these laws are going to be overwhelmingly black and brown and from poor homes. It would be hard to think of a more dysgenic law and we already have plenty of dysgenic pressure.

    But this is all a matter for the state legislatures and not the Supreme Ct. All 50 states should have liberal abortion laws as far as I am concerned.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D

    The whole SCOTUS majority line of reasoning is a mixture of theology & casuistry, therefore weak. Even if a country is 100% white, abortion should be legal until 12 weeks, and in extreme cases almost until the end.

    That's the majority position of the civilized Western world.

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.
     
    Except crack whores don't have abortions. They need government to fund their addictions. Every additional baby has Uncle Sam stepping in with incremental subsidies to pay for their highs. Bottom line - the clientele for abortion clinics is working people, not welfare leeches. The primary impact of this natalist judicial ruling will, at the margins, be to trigger a baby boom among the working class.
    , @Thoughts
    @Jack D

    I think this argument is similar to the "The Covid Vaccine Reduces Hospitalizations" argument

    You have no idea if your right

    You may be wrong. Abortion may be Dysgenic amongst the black community.

    I don't think the black community needs to embrace baby murdering in order to better themselves as a group

    In fact, becoming Christian is the easiest way for blacks to improve their lot...and we have DEFINITIVE Proof of that...and Guess what a Key Part of being Christian is? Oh yes...not dragging the fetus out of the womb

  263. @JR Ewing
    @Jack D


    The Left is priming us for the argument that the Right is plotting to seize power thru undemocratic means and must therefore be banned as insurrectionists. That is what all this Jan. 6 crap is about.
     
    I figured this out myself about a year ago when the first rumblings of "14th Amendment disqualification!" began to be heard. Up until then, I, like most normal Americans thought the use of the word, "insurrection" was an exaggeration and kind of inappropriate and being misused for a dumb protest that got a little out of hand, but they - including the press - chose that word specifically, for disqualification reasons. And it has become so commonly used now and people are so used to it, that when they finally go through with it, most Americans will see it as logical, seeing that there was an insurrection after all.

    I'm not sure I agree that they intend to go after the whole "right" with it, but they definitely are going after Trump and anyone else they can tie to Jan 6. And once these hearings are over, Congress, probably during the lame duck session at the end of this year, is eventually going to pass a law declaring these people ineligible for office. Even Sinema and Manchin will go along with this and they'll nuke the filibuster to do it. I'm not really sure the new congress next year will even care about reversing it.

    Then, all they need is 2-3 swing states to decide at the last minute to go along with the new law and keep Trump off the ballot and by the time it plays out in the courts and this nonsense is overturned, it will be too late. He'll have to wait 4 more years and get 4 years older and the dems will probably have some other trick up their sleeves to consolidate power even further by then.

    The left is always playing the long game.

    As meaningless and dumb and small as the Jan 6 incident was, it was a major strategic blunder by the right.

    Replies: @Eric Novak

    No one gives a shit about Jan. 6 either. It’s as irrelevant to the general public as the reversal of Roe.

  264. @kahein
    the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers because -- just like you! -- they're shitty youtube-tier amateur historians

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/bruen-supreme-court-guns-mockery-originalism.html

    Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Note this headline on the same site:

    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Reg Cæsar

    That's the genetic fallacy, but it's from the egregious gun-grabber Saul Cornell so that heuristic is even more useful. And fatally for the Troll kahein, it's an attempt to read the tea leaves of the oral arguments, which often have judges asking counterintuitive things about their own positions. It cannot say anything about the actual decisions unless you do a lot of work to cross reference the two and see which still might be applicable.

    I continue to be amazed by people who provide us links and don't expect us to actually follow them and see what they say, or here don't say at all. Here there's no excuse, there's already informed first glance opinions of the Bruen opinions. Or, heh, read Alito's evisceration of Breyer's "dissent" For example, citations removed:


    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

    What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside...?

    The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, ... but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun....

    The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home....
     
    "Good times make soft Jews."

    Although the number of guns in private hands in the US is a lot closer to 600 million than 400, the likely range is significantly over both figures.

    Replies: @kahein

    , @epebble
    @Reg Cæsar

    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    I was curious about it too and found this interesting paper:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2015/09/prosecuting-women-self-inducing-abortion-counterproductive-and-lacking-compassion

    It is a bit dated and obviously before the recent decision. But it looks like there haven't been too many prosecutions. If the number of prosecutions rise (for those who go out of state or practice medically induced self-abortions), it will be interesting to see if the public opinion shifts.

  265. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Were you drunk last night, Jim?

    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.

    It is simply nuts how uniformed people are about basic reproduction and how emotionally crazy they get about the topic and their own ignorance of it! That issue can be solved but, most don't care to learn the facts and prefer their made-up ideas about it.

    Houston? Big problem....

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JimDandy

    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.

    Nevertheless, the fetus is perfectly viable within the womb. The individuals responsible for its existence had better have a good excuse for removing it.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Reg Cæsar

    The Real World is a mentally ill troll. Truly one of the most disgusting creatures ever to post here.

    , @The Real World
    @Reg Cæsar

    Linear dialogue, Reg, stay on a linear dialogue, please.

    Nobody know when conception occurs so it is a ridiculous line in the sand. Then, Mr Dandy Wingnut flings to comparing it to viability outside the womb as if it's the same thing. (Frankly, he gets so strung-out about this, I think he may be speaking from a guilty conscience. It's too weird, otherwise.)

    Retards abound on this issue and almost entirely because they are ignorant of basic reproductive FACTS and because they want to impose their will on others.

    Both of those suck...but, they don't care. It's all about them - too many narcissists.

  266. @Dmon
    @Mike Tre

    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn't prohibit it. Well, I just checked the constitution, and it doesn't prohibit murder either.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn’t prohibit it.

    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That’s retarded.

    The point of the whole substantive due process line of cases is that the enumerated rights a long shadow or “penumbra.” An example: The Constitution doesn’t specifically provide you with the right to send your child to private school, but it does provide you with the rights to freedom of expression and religion, and that the right to send your child to a private school is necessary for those rights to be fully actualized.

    You can disagree or not, bit please spare us the ridiculous straw man about the Constitution protecting abortion simply because it is not specifically prohibited. Please, it’s obvious that you’re not a lawyer. Of course, you6still entitled to your opinion, but please, make it an informed opinion or just STFU.

    Mike’s other argument, thatmthe fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life, is just begging the question.

    • Thanks: Curle
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Rosie


    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That’s retarded.
     
    Candidly, the Constitution and BOR as originally conceived weren't incorporated as against the States, so it doesn't really guarantee individual liberties against State interference. The Founding Fathers would have found the notion that the Constitution prohibited Ye Olde Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from outlawing abortion, or that people would expect the Constitution to grant a right to abortion (or conversely to contain implicit prohibitions against abortion) utterly bizarre. Those prohibitions already existed under English and colonial law - regulation of health, safety, and morals were understood to be within the purview of the States, and as JackD pointed out elsewhere abortion was an offense under British Common Law as governed in the colonies and then the early United States. The State Courts in which I regularly practice all well predate the Union itself, and its not unheard of to research a legal issue thoroughly and wind up reading an early opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which references English opinions as precedential. It's just that in the late Eighteenth Century it would have been taken for granted that there would not be a constituency in civil society of any kind in favor of legalized abortion or sodomy (or housebreaking or extortion), which were within the realms of rakes, whores, knaves, and perverts. Rights "reserved to the people" under the 9A would have been well-founded rights inherited from British law (and maintained by the colonial Courts), not as yet unheard of licenses to do things which British and colonial law clearly prohibited under criminal sanction. The Constitution was not, again, intended to be an exhaustive recitation of extant common law rights inuring to the individual. It is like saying "the 9A guarantees my right to horse thievery" or "the 9th Amendment guarantees my right to arson."
    , @Dmon
    @Rosie

    Penumbras, huh? They had abortion back at the time the constitution was written, and they had state abortion laws on the books for about 200 years, and somehow no one before Harry Blackmun ever thought that this was a violation of a natural right under the penumbra of some enumerated right. So what you've got is a politicized opinion wrested into being a constitutional right to satisfy some influential lobby, and being overturned about half a century later - pretty much the same as Plessy v Ferguson.
    Your private school argument is BS - there were damn few free public schools in 1787 America. No one would have needed a penumbra to figure on that being a natural right. Let's go with something a little more on topic. Is polygamy a natural right? If not, why not? If 3 people and a horse want to get married as part of their religion, how can any state law prevent that? How about Sacred Prostitution?
    You have at various times on this site advocated that laws should be arranged such that certain occupations employ an equal number of women as men, and that men should be legally discriminated against to achieve this outcome. Can you please provide your informed opinion as a legal retard as to how this is compatible with the 14th Amendment equal protection clause? Or feel free to STFU.

    Replies: @Rosie

  267. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Were you drunk last night, Jim?

    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.

    It is simply nuts how uniformed people are about basic reproduction and how emotionally crazy they get about the topic and their own ignorance of it! That issue can be solved but, most don't care to learn the facts and prefer their made-up ideas about it.

    Houston? Big problem....

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JimDandy

    Just taking every opportunity to remind you of the fact you want to brush off. Babies are being slaughtered, troll.

  268. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Ugh. That deflection was a fail.

    If you're so convinced that large numbers of abortions occur in the later weeks of pregnancy because the mother is "depressed"...then produce the statistics proving it.

    Otherwise, you're simply making shit up and expect to be taken seriously. Another fail.

    You also didn't answer the question posed. More avoidance?

    Replies: @JimDandy

    You’re a truly sickening human being.

    “It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other. However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.”

    “A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”

    • Replies: @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Yep, more avoidance, STILL.

    Where are the statistics you are melting down about? Numbers, Dandyman, and the circumstances for why those later abortions occurred. Details matter.

    Until then, you have nothing solid to offer. Except hysteria and that serves no one. Take your pills.

    Replies: @JimDandy

  269. @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.
     
    Nevertheless, the fetus is perfectly viable within the womb. The individuals responsible for its existence had better have a good excuse for removing it.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @The Real World

    The Real World is a mentally ill troll. Truly one of the most disgusting creatures ever to post here.

  270. @ginger bread man
    @Dutch Boy


    Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.
     
    Where can I read more about this abortion being a Jewish sacrament? I would like to know more about why this is.

    See this relevant clip:
    https://youtu.be/g7NIvS4IBdc

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Dutch Boy

  271. @The Real World
    @JimDandy

    Realistic questions:
    -- Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?
    -- Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother's life is threatened).

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @epebble

    — Where does the Constitution prohibit the right to abort?

    It doesn’t do so explicitly and the Court in Dobbs didn’t prohibit abortions. Legislation of public health, safety, and morals is well within the traditional purview of State legislatures.

    Where does that document prohibit the right to bodily autonomy? (within reason. Example, a fetus that is viable outside the womb is not reasonable to abort unless the Mother’s life is threatened).

    “Prohibit the right to bodily autonomy” is verbal jujitsu. It certainly permits the invasion of bodily autonomy for compelling State interests like criminal punishment (the State can hang you, but only after a trial) or military conscription (the United States can require you to serve under arms and order you to a certain death in combat).

  272. @Jonathan Mason
    @John Johnson


    It’s an endless cat and mouse game unless there is an initiative that defines shall issue requirements. LA plays these same games. If you really want to conceal carry then the best solution is to move. The politicians in these cities are anti-gun and write the forms.
     
    If you carry a concealed weapon and keep it concealed, then no one will know as long as you don't try to enter a courthouse, prison, or airport with a gun tucked in your jockstrap.

    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Eric Novak

    Chicago here-the problems for using a concealed weapon for self-defense lead to the cops giving your gun back to you. That’s the consequence for using a concealed weapon legally.

  273. @jb
    @Prester John

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a "person" under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Gamecock

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a “person” under the law?

    Yes, they do, though of course they know perfectly well that a fertilized egg is not really a person. They want to maintain the fiction that it is because they want to control women.

    They blame abortion for their inability to find a wife. (Yes, I’m serious!)

    Of course, the funny thing is, they might be right, but not for the reasons they think. The inability to pump and dump with abortion as a backstop may well encourage men to marry earlier rather than leading on and using various women throughout their twenties.

    Heck, with Roe v. Wade out of the way, women might be able to cut fathers out of their children’s lives altogether. At common law, unwed fathers didn’t have to pay child support, but they didn’t have any rights either. If the father didn’t marry the mother, she was free to marry a man who wanted her child and give him all the legal rights of fatherhood. She could also give the child up to her own family members for adoption and the father had no say so in the matter. The rights of unwed fathers are totally dependent on the same substantive due process cases as the right to abortion.

  274. @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @Anon7

    I think the electoral benefits of the Dobbs ruling are pretty minor for Democrats.

    The only thing that could POSSIBLY be problematic is if suburban married white women say, "You know, grocery and gas prices are through the roof, but man, I gotta go Blue because of Roe and the Supreme Court."

    How likely is that? Not very.

    The very very very WHITE chicks who are protesting now wouldn't vote for a Republican even if their lives depended on it. I move in some of these circles, and believe me, passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern, particularly for boomers and genX-ers and other post first wave feminists. They think Republicans are troglodytes anyway.

    And remember the news cycle moves fast. This will pass.

    However, the economic news will continue to arrive, and it will not be pretty. And if Ukraine effectively loses the war and/or surrenders by November, it will be another demoralizing blow to the deep state. It could be an electoral catastrophe of monumental proportions for Democrats.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Anon7

    “… passion about the abortion issue is a White girl elitist concern.”

    You make good points; it’s not that I don’t want Biden and the Dems to take the heat for the bad problems they’ve created.

    Taking the larger view, I think that the “abortion issue” was originally created to divide the nation, and the strategy has worked amazingly well. We’ll see what happens in August-November. I say that because now, that’s when the voting happens.

    That’s another big story that is uncovered, the shift that will take place when it requires no more effort to vote than to mark a form and leave it for the postman. The abortion issue will mobilize all these White girls to go house to house to make sure all those ballots are mailed in.

    As I pointed out in another comment, Biden has already sent emails telling Dems that their rights have been taken away, and it’s time to vote in more Dems. I’ve also seen “news” stories that claim to “predict” that changes in abortion law will devastate the economy.

  275. @Jack D
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I fully agree. That is why the anti-abortion ideology ("preserve human life") sounds wonderful in the abstract but not so wonderful when you apply it to the real world. More unwanted black babies are the last thing that we need. The imaginary baby who will be saved by these laws is a cute white kid who could have been adopted. The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    It's even worse than these stats sound. As you make abortion more difficult it's still not going to be a problem for affluent white women - they will work around the system. They would fly to Switzerland if they had to. But the poorer and blacker and less resourceful you are, the more likely you are just going to end up having the baby. So the marginal babies produced by these laws are going to be overwhelmingly black and brown and from poor homes. It would be hard to think of a more dysgenic law and we already have plenty of dysgenic pressure.

    But this is all a matter for the state legislatures and not the Supreme Ct. All 50 states should have liberal abortion laws as far as I am concerned.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Johann Ricke, @Thoughts

    The whole SCOTUS majority line of reasoning is a mixture of theology & casuistry, therefore weak. Even if a country is 100% white, abortion should be legal until 12 weeks, and in extreme cases almost until the end.

    That’s the majority position of the civilized Western world.

  276. @The Real World
    @Achmed E. Newman

    OMG, see I could laugh except it's too freaking sad, really.

    Alfred E. Newman (typo intended) - declares that conception occurred when she had sex.

    AMERICA? Do you see the problem we have? Even adults of mature ages don't understand the basics of reproduction. It is just astonishing. There should be a difficult pass/fail test about it when people go to get their drivers license.

    Conception takes place DAYS later, Alfie. It could be 3 days later, it could be 5 days after sex before conception has completed. THAT is why Docs estimate the pregnancy start. Conception does not occur moments after you make your special contribution. How magical! Smh.....

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    High School biology was a long time ago, we spent the time drawing penises in various places on the illustrations, and they didn’t have HowStuffWorks.com back then. So, you are right about the doctors, but, yeah, it could be just 7 hours later.

    Lucky for us, it all went well even without a refresher course and without the internet.

    Sorry for my error. What does “Smh” mean, “so much horniness”?

    .

    PS: My wife “wasn’t so sure” about her whole pregnancy thing that first day or two. I was having none of that. She’d be ashamed of her former self at this point, were I to bring it up, which I never would. It’s unthinkable at this point.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Hahahh, shaking my head ....

    , @The Real World
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Well, at least you're decent about it and accept your error. Most wouldn't; they prefer to continue emitting their ignorant hubris.

    Smh = abbreviation for: shaking my head.
    (But, I can see the application of your definition too...lol. That means: laughing out loud.)

    Conception doesn't happen in 7 hours. Days after...it is not known when it has completed and a pregnancy has begun..

  277. @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized. States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Almost Missouri, @ginger bread man, @AKAHorace, @Art Deco

    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.

    That is a pretty foolish argument. If you want to get ethnically abusive, what about the Dutch ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

    States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.

    US elections are not won on hard Blue or Red states so much as by swing voters in purple states. A lot of the US right are extreme on unimportant unpopular matters so that they loose ground on the important questions.

    https://www.takimag.com/article/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-a-maga/

    https://www.takimag.com/article/aborting-trumpism/

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @AKAHorace

    Cole has written that he dislikes children. He also thinks its okay to abort Down Syndrome children. It is just a plain fact that Jews as a group are strongly pro-abortion and were particularly active in seeking to legalize it. That we are in an economic meltdown (that will get much worse before it gets better) is also a fact. It is a wave that will swallow any ripples caused by abortion.

    Replies: @Gordo

  278. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Awaiting your commentary about how many of the elite players being drafted in the NBA are mixed-race (Black father/mother who's not)...

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Today in the US about 12% of African-American children have a white mother….

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Thanks, I've been looking for that number. Can you tell me where you got it?

  279. @Rosie
    @Dmon


    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn’t prohibit it.
     
    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That's retarded.

    The point of the whole substantive due process line of cases is that the enumerated rights a long shadow or "penumbra." An example: The Constitution doesn't specifically provide you with the right to send your child to private school, but it does provide you with the rights to freedom of expression and religion, and that the right to send your child to a private school is necessary for those rights to be fully actualized.

    You can disagree or not, bit please spare us the ridiculous straw man about the Constitution protecting abortion simply because it is not specifically prohibited. Please, it's obvious that you're not a lawyer. Of course, you6still entitled to your opinion, but please, make it an informed opinion or just STFU.

    Mike's other argument, thatmthe fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life, is just begging the question.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Dmon

    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That’s retarded.

    Candidly, the Constitution and BOR as originally conceived weren’t incorporated as against the States, so it doesn’t really guarantee individual liberties against State interference. The Founding Fathers would have found the notion that the Constitution prohibited Ye Olde Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from outlawing abortion, or that people would expect the Constitution to grant a right to abortion (or conversely to contain implicit prohibitions against abortion) utterly bizarre. Those prohibitions already existed under English and colonial law – regulation of health, safety, and morals were understood to be within the purview of the States, and as JackD pointed out elsewhere abortion was an offense under British Common Law as governed in the colonies and then the early United States. The State Courts in which I regularly practice all well predate the Union itself, and its not unheard of to research a legal issue thoroughly and wind up reading an early opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which references English opinions as precedential. It’s just that in the late Eighteenth Century it would have been taken for granted that there would not be a constituency in civil society of any kind in favor of legalized abortion or sodomy (or housebreaking or extortion), which were within the realms of rakes, whores, knaves, and perverts. Rights “reserved to the people” under the 9A would have been well-founded rights inherited from British law (and maintained by the colonial Courts), not as yet unheard of licenses to do things which British and colonial law clearly prohibited under criminal sanction. The Constitution was not, again, intended to be an exhaustive recitation of extant common law rights inuring to the individual. It is like saying “the 9A guarantees my right to horse thievery” or “the 9th Amendment guarantees my right to arson.”

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  280. @Gordo
    @Achmed E. Newman


    A.M., I put one video clip on my site with one of the big news anchors doing a story on Joe Biden’s plagiarism (direct rip-off of some Scottish politician’s speech), from 30-something years ago. It’s amazing!
     
    Welsh, Neil Kinnock was the “Welsh Windbag”.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    That’s him. Thanks, Gordo. The newsman was Sam Donaldson at ABC, as posted in The Lyin’ Press of 1988. It was different 34 years ago alright.

    Haha, I’m not sure “literally Franco” would work. Maybe 1 in 25 Americans would have any idea who he was. I guess that wouldn’t stop them anyway, come to think of it…

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54603f2fe4b0719cb5b13cc2/1480042434667-L1A0QOLQXI2YYMWA17ZK/image-asset.jpeg

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  281. @Reg Cæsar
    @kahein

    Note this headline on the same site:


    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @epebble

    That’s the genetic fallacy, but it’s from the egregious gun-grabber Saul Cornell so that heuristic is even more useful. And fatally for the Troll kahein, it’s an attempt to read the tea leaves of the oral arguments, which often have judges asking counterintuitive things about their own positions. It cannot say anything about the actual decisions unless you do a lot of work to cross reference the two and see which still might be applicable.

    I continue to be amazed by people who provide us links and don’t expect us to actually follow them and see what they say, or here don’t say at all. Here there’s no excuse, there’s already informed first glance opinions of the Bruen opinions. Or, heh, read Alito’s evisceration of Breyer’s “dissent” For example, citations removed:

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

    What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside…?

    The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, … but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun….

    The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home….

    “Good times make soft Jews.”

    Although the number of guns in private hands in the US is a lot closer to 600 million than 400, the likely range is significantly over both figures.

    • Agree: TWS
    • Replies: @kahein
    @That Would Be Telling

    what it says is that the actual history of gun regulation is massively different than your gaseous atavistic phantasies of what you want it to be, or saw on youtube. as i said elsewhere (and was censored) the population of colonial cities circa ratification was frequently under 20,000 (eg, boston) -- barely a highway-exit shithole town by modern standards (eg, like your home). population density overall in the colonies was something like 1 cap per 4.5 sq miles lol

    ie, your "originalist" metaphantasy/larp is like everything else in your offbrand-nazi imaginarium: a load of mendacious midwit bullshit

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

  282. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Gordo

    That's him. Thanks, Gordo. The newsman was Sam Donaldson at ABC, as posted in The Lyin' Press of 1988. It was different 34 years ago alright.

    Haha, I'm not sure "literally Franco" would work. Maybe 1 in 25 Americans would have any idea who he was. I guess that wouldn't stop them anyway, come to think of it...

    Replies: @nebulafox

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @nebulafox

    Hell, I don't know who that is, Neil Kinnock, Franco? I'm pretty sure that's not Sam Donaldson.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

  283. @Achmed E. Newman
    @The Real World

    High School biology was a long time ago, we spent the time drawing penises in various places on the illustrations, and they didn't have HowStuffWorks.com back then. So, you are right about the doctors, but, yeah, it could be just 7 hours later.

    Lucky for us, it all went well even without a refresher course and without the internet.

    Sorry for my error. What does "Smh" mean, "so much horniness"?

    .

    PS: My wife "wasn't so sure" about her whole pregnancy thing that first day or two. I was having none of that. She'd be ashamed of her former self at this point, were I to bring it up, which I never would. It's unthinkable at this point.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @The Real World

    Hahahh, shaking my head ….

  284. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/world/us-abortion-law-global-comparison-scotus-intl-cmd/index.html

    Scrapping Roe v. Wade makes the US an outlier in the West. Here’s how it compares on abortion rights

  285. jb says:
    @JR Ewing
    @Rosie


    Probably not, because of the equal protection clause. Come to think of it, that might save gay marriage, too.
     
    I'm not disagreeing with you on result of this, which was your point, but I do feel obliged to argue the matter itself that it's not at all clear that denying gay marriage violates equal protection.

    Before the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" were visited upon America, and even before some states took the plunge to allow gay marriage, gays have always had the same right as straights to get married. There was no "equal protection" argument to be made: everyone was prohibited equally from marrying someone of the same sex and everyone was allowed equally to marry anyone they chose of the opposite sex.

    Neither "homosexuality" nor "marriage" is mentioned in the constitution, and up until this lunacy became mainstream ~20 years ago, there were no state marriage laws that mentioned homosexuality. They simply said "one man and one woman" and they applied it to everyone, regardless of sexuality.

    But again, I agree with you that the mainstream take is that those laws still violated equal protection in some way and therefore gay marriage is a necessary outcome under the 15th amendment.

    Replies: @jb

    …even before some states took the plunge to allow gay marriage, gays have always had the same right as straights to get married.

    YES YES YES! It infuriated me that nobody ever focused on this point when it still might have done some good. Gays always had exactly the same marriage rights as straight people; that just wasn’t what they wanted.

    Now if they had acknowledged that redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex was radical and unprecedented in Western (and in fact pretty much all of world) history, and then gone on to argue that it was a good idea anyway, I would still have opposed it, but I would have at least respected them for making an honest argument. Of course like all radicals they weren’t interested in honest arguments, they were interested in winning. I just wish my side had done a better job of calling them on it.

  286. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:

    That Times story isn’t SNR at all — viddy the byline: Haberman and Bender. A piece of gossip-girl product tendered for making Trump look bad to his supporters doesn’t function conversely to make Trump look good to his enemies. The true subscriber news-content is feeding the boiled-bunny fixation on the strategic discernment of the actually most improv/instinct-driven politician ever. The media harvests clicks from this atavistic liberal seething about Trump’s populistic minor successes which are impossible according to the science.

    That metrolibs automatically believe Trump is faking being pro-life does not mean he did not say this in a quarterbacking-the-news way. But definitionally that isn’t SNR. Trump would need to preach GOP repentance on abortion to get SNR. He was soft on gays and hard on guns and didn’t draw liberal kudos for either angle.

    Is the proposition even true re: [x] turn of events “hurting” Reps in the fall? You’d need to care about either party in the first place, or be a K Street consultant, to determine that. I’d expect it will put a dozen or so Dems over the top in close races, which is still electoral noise. Mark Udall (of the Beltway Udalls) crashed out of the 2014 Senate race by blathering about abortion. It isn’t a lifeline, ha, in the post-Cronkite/Sevareid/whatever campaign era. Politicians yearn for these plug-in “issues” but even manufactured war presently flops at hyping up any one candidate. No one in The Squad has been burned by support for the Ukrainianiacs.

  287. First of all, this is a great day.

    Other than that, I just want to say that, regarding the overturning of Roe, the muffled, muted, and sometimes downright disparaging responses of many on the Alt-Right have been sickening to behold, if not exactly surprising.

    There are those who say that this will energize the Democratic base for the midterm elections. I think this claim is entirely without foundation. It is the pro-life camp that will be energized. They are the ones just coming off an historic victory, while the pro-death camp is coming off an historic defeat. The idea that one should have the right to murder unborn babies is not going to be a very effective rallying point without the cover of the law.

    For that is what Roe did: It provided legal cover for people to act horribly and selfishly, and to do so in ways far outside the specific act of abortion. That was its tacit purpose, its intended purpose, and the explanation for its convoluted reasoning. And that is why the progressive Left fought for it with all its unhinged fury.

    Some people like to make snide comments saying that legalized abortion has been a boon to the country because it prevented millions of brown babies from clogging up the welfare rolls. Notwithstanding the monstrous immorality of such statements, these people are also oblivious to the ceteris paribus considerations that the Left seems to understand much better than they do.

    [MORE]

    The progressive agenda is a seamless garment of evil. It advances heavily like a glacier, slowly pulverizing everything in its path. Roe was the cold heart of that glacier. Without the idea in the back of your mind that you can remove yourself from the consequences of your actions by any means, up to and including killing your own children, there never would have been that many people on welfare because the nation could not and would not have afforded it. Abortion enables the welfare state; it enables it because it smooths over the anxiety generated whenever anyone dares to ask himself the question, “How are we going to pay for all this?” Abortion then becomes the devil whispering in your ear: You can pay for it because you have no obligations, no duties, no cares. You don’t even have to care for your own children. See, you can even kill them if you want to. Consequently, you are under no obligation to defend your women from rape and lasciviousness, or to protect your daughters. Who cares if they get pregnant? There’s always a way out. Go ahead, let them dress like sluts. Let them work outside the home without chaperons. Let them sleep around. You can even screw them too, if you feel like it. You pay for the welfare state so that you can be free of care. Poverty, pregnancy, consequences, death—you don’t have to care about any of it. YOU, my man, are FREE. Small price to pay for doing anything you want. Now, doesn’t it feel good to do whatever you want?

    Abortion can do this because it is the sacrament of Satan. It is thoroughly and uniquely evil, because nothing could be more contrary to the will of nature and of God then murdering one’s own children. Killing children is the ultimate denial of reality because it is the denial of life, death, mortality, and futurity. It is the denial of time, which for every man must one day come to an end. Once you have denied this, you can deny anything else. That is the keystone in the whole edifice of moral positivism which enthrones the cult of the self.

    All of modernity and its progressivist religion exists to serve this cult of the self. Broken families, promiscuity, divorce, birth control, the welfare state, feminism, Affirmative Action (i.e. the elimination of standards), immigration, homelessness and drug addiction as a lifestyle choice, obscenity, homosexualism, transsexualism,—it is all reality denial. And yes, as other commenters have said, it is all premised on the notion that the government will supply an infinite amount of money with which to fund that which is naturally counterproductive and sterile. Rather tellingly, it is all paid for not with production but with deficit spending. That is to say, it is not paid for at all.

    Roe was spiritually at the center of all of this. Now this is all at an end. Now we are about to reap what we have sown and be hammered with a giant backlog of real-world consequences the likes of which have never occurred in living memory. The bill for many evils has come due.

    This is a great day.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Great comment, thanks.

  288. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    This isn't about morals. It's about IQ and taxes.

    I don't want low IQ proles having more kids than they do. I already pay for their disgusting bastards using taxes. Break up America. It's not about liberal vs conservative, or Christian vs Atheist.

    It's about low IQ vs high IQ. rich vs poor. proles vs swpls. I don't want to live in fat prole low IQ Kentucky. I want to live on the Upper East Side.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    You’re delusional on the Upper East Side bit. Globocapitalism mandates your enrichment.

    Formerly you had that arrangement in Seattle and Portland, not difficult to see what’s transpired there. You can sort of get a facsimile of it in Vermont, but you’ll be around pot-smoker whites who don’t shower. Stop expecting the government to subsidize your secular, soap-using, IQ-maxx lifestyle.

  289. @Jack D
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I fully agree. That is why the anti-abortion ideology ("preserve human life") sounds wonderful in the abstract but not so wonderful when you apply it to the real world. More unwanted black babies are the last thing that we need. The imaginary baby who will be saved by these laws is a cute white kid who could have been adopted. The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    It's even worse than these stats sound. As you make abortion more difficult it's still not going to be a problem for affluent white women - they will work around the system. They would fly to Switzerland if they had to. But the poorer and blacker and less resourceful you are, the more likely you are just going to end up having the baby. So the marginal babies produced by these laws are going to be overwhelmingly black and brown and from poor homes. It would be hard to think of a more dysgenic law and we already have plenty of dysgenic pressure.

    But this is all a matter for the state legislatures and not the Supreme Ct. All 50 states should have liberal abortion laws as far as I am concerned.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Johann Ricke, @Thoughts

    The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    Except crack whores don’t have abortions. They need government to fund their addictions. Every additional baby has Uncle Sam stepping in with incremental subsidies to pay for their highs. Bottom line – the clientele for abortion clinics is working people, not welfare leeches. The primary impact of this natalist judicial ruling will, at the margins, be to trigger a baby boom among the working class.

  290. @Jonathan Mason
    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    However it does look like the US could eventually be headed for devolution, and perhaps a split into red and blue zones, both of them one-party States.

    Both zones would be happier and able to live the way they wanted.

    When some states define abortion as murder, and others have it as legal, you're going to have all sorts of problems over extradition, and ultimately abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States. I'm not sure where that leaves the swing States.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hibernian, @Muggles, @West reanimator

    Texas is ready to go its own way again.

    Maybe let OK, LA and NM tag along too. We get to keep the military bases/nukes already based here.

    Maybe let a couple of the adjacent Rep. of Mexico states join as affiliated territories. Clean out the cartels and use the unemployed sicarros for “migrant” control.

    The (New) Republican Federation of Texas would have an ass kicking military. We’d have to uh, “borrow” most of our Navy from elsewhere. I’m sure a few Admirals would move in with fleets.

    “Woke” would soon sink under the weight of being ignored or ridiculed. Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists. Max Boot would not be admitted.

    Sounds like Plan A to me…

    • LOL: Hibernian
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Muggles

    Muggles wrote:


    Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists.
     
    My step-grandmother is born and bred deep in the heart of Texas, now in her early nineties.

    Three decades ago, she started chatting with me about a case for which she had been on the jury involving some poor guy who was up for marijuana possession. She thought is was stupid and cruel to put a guy in jail for using pot.

    No, she has never used pot and does not think people should. And I do not think anyone has ever accused her of being a "liberal."

    She just thinks Americans let other people live their own lives and make their own mistakes.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle

  291. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy

    Demography trumps pieces of paper.

    Replies: @Louis Renault, @JimDandy

    Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the increase in Mexican-Americans already cemented our fate of sinking into idiocracy?

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @JimDandy

    I just mean that demography always comes first. The rules and institutions that work for a particular nation are from the bottom up. They are grown organically. I want to dispel the myth that we can just "teach Western Civ" to anybody and it will take.

    It's not just an IQ question. Asians do well on tests but they are different from White people and prefer different governments. So, White people are going to be an absolute minority soon. Whites will have to adjust themselves to that reality and start being more "tribal" and less smitten by rules in the sky.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @JimDandy

    Institutions are downstream from culture which is downstream from biology. The Constitution embodies the values of a certain people. As that race loses power, the Constitution also loses its relevance.

    The Constitution will not save you.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Corvinus

  292. @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54603f2fe4b0719cb5b13cc2/1480042434667-L1A0QOLQXI2YYMWA17ZK/image-asset.jpeg

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Hell, I don’t know who that is, Neil Kinnock, Franco? I’m pretty sure that’s not Sam Donaldson.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix?

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It's literally Sulla.

    , @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    A more likely scenario for a re-paganized age than a nu-Francisco Franco. That, or I radically underestimate the permanence of the potential forces of decentralization taking off right now. One of the two.

    Pentagon brass going out there now. While I think the actual fracas around this "case" is wildly overstated, what people believe it to be is not.

  293. @Jonathan Mason
    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    So far they have managed to keep it so that they all drive on the same side of the road, and all have public schools, yellow school buses, and Walmarts.

    However it does look like the US could eventually be headed for devolution, and perhaps a split into red and blue zones, both of them one-party States.

    Both zones would be happier and able to live the way they wanted.

    When some states define abortion as murder, and others have it as legal, you're going to have all sorts of problems over extradition, and ultimately abortion could be the new Dred Scott.

    So in the future we might have two Supreme Courts, one for the red States, and the other for the blue States. I'm not sure where that leaves the swing States.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hibernian, @Muggles, @West reanimator

    It has always struck me that there is a remarkable similarity between different states, considering that there are 50 different states with 50 different legislatures.

    Probably because they haven’t truly been states since 1865. They would more accurately be called the United Provinces at this point.

  294. @Reg Cæsar
    @kahein

    Note this headline on the same site:


    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @epebble

    How States Will Target Pregnant People Now That Roe Has Fallen

    I was curious about it too and found this interesting paper:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2015/09/prosecuting-women-self-inducing-abortion-counterproductive-and-lacking-compassion

    It is a bit dated and obviously before the recent decision. But it looks like there haven’t been too many prosecutions. If the number of prosecutions rise (for those who go out of state or practice medically induced self-abortions), it will be interesting to see if the public opinion shifts.

  295. @anonymous
    Just for the record, I think abortion should be legal before the point of fetal viability, but I don't believe there is a constitutional right to an abortion.
    There wasn't a constitutional right to abortion in 1972 or 1939 or 1897 or 1915 and there wasn't one suddenly in 1973. This arrogant decision overturning the duly enacted laws in 45 (!) states, was created out of whole cloth by seven power-hungry men who were looking to codify an elite consensus on an issue they damn-well knew the citizenry felt overwhelmingly different about at the time. That the public, regardless of how you may personally feel on this matter, let such a farce stand for almost 50 years is a disgrace.

    As for the claim that abortion really has been a blessing in disguise given the demographics of those who usually terminate pregnancies (poor, minority) and that this has had the effect keeping America's feral underclass from exploding in size, these analyses don't take into account how mandatory birth control for all welfare recipients could have been just as effective (or more) in this regard.
    Under a Court that is strictly reading the US Constitution states should now have the ability to require hormonal contraceptives (which are nearly foolproof, btw) or tubal ligations for all unwed women on welfare. Such a measure would likely act as a very effective counter-balance, demographically speaking, in the states where abortions are now barred. The only question is whether the people in those states have the brains and the balls to implement such a measure.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Thoughts

    You don’t get to tell other people what to do with their bodies regardless of class or income…possibly criminality (not letting serial killers breed in jail f.ex)…but nothing else

    Just wipe that thought out of your mind because it is very very very evil

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Thoughts

    I'm not telling people what to do with their bodies per se, I'm merely stating that unwed mothers on welfare, in exchange for their benefits, should be required to stop producing more hungry mouths. If they can't (or won't) use hormonal birth control or sterilization and therefore keep producing children they can't possibly provide for, then the state needs to step in on grounds of child endangerment.

    "You're endangering the lives of innocent children by willfully bringing more of them into an environment where you're unable to care for them financially (or otherwise). Either we take the kids away from you permanently and you live in some sort of supervised custody till menopause, or you agree to use state-monitored birth control in exchange for return of your existing kids and continued welfare benefits."

    Replies: @Corvinus

  296. @Jack D
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I fully agree. That is why the anti-abortion ideology ("preserve human life") sounds wonderful in the abstract but not so wonderful when you apply it to the real world. More unwanted black babies are the last thing that we need. The imaginary baby who will be saved by these laws is a cute white kid who could have been adopted. The actual babies will be the welfare babies of crack whores who are the future criminals of America.

    It's even worse than these stats sound. As you make abortion more difficult it's still not going to be a problem for affluent white women - they will work around the system. They would fly to Switzerland if they had to. But the poorer and blacker and less resourceful you are, the more likely you are just going to end up having the baby. So the marginal babies produced by these laws are going to be overwhelmingly black and brown and from poor homes. It would be hard to think of a more dysgenic law and we already have plenty of dysgenic pressure.

    But this is all a matter for the state legislatures and not the Supreme Ct. All 50 states should have liberal abortion laws as far as I am concerned.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Johann Ricke, @Thoughts

    I think this argument is similar to the “The Covid Vaccine Reduces Hospitalizations” argument

    You have no idea if your right

    You may be wrong. Abortion may be Dysgenic amongst the black community.

    I don’t think the black community needs to embrace baby murdering in order to better themselves as a group

    In fact, becoming Christian is the easiest way for blacks to improve their lot…and we have DEFINITIVE Proof of that…and Guess what a Key Part of being Christian is? Oh yes…not dragging the fetus out of the womb

  297. @That Would Be Telling
    @Reg Cæsar

    That's the genetic fallacy, but it's from the egregious gun-grabber Saul Cornell so that heuristic is even more useful. And fatally for the Troll kahein, it's an attempt to read the tea leaves of the oral arguments, which often have judges asking counterintuitive things about their own positions. It cannot say anything about the actual decisions unless you do a lot of work to cross reference the two and see which still might be applicable.

    I continue to be amazed by people who provide us links and don't expect us to actually follow them and see what they say, or here don't say at all. Here there's no excuse, there's already informed first glance opinions of the Bruen opinions. Or, heh, read Alito's evisceration of Breyer's "dissent" For example, citations removed:


    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

    What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside...?

    The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, ... but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun....

    The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home....
     
    "Good times make soft Jews."

    Although the number of guns in private hands in the US is a lot closer to 600 million than 400, the likely range is significantly over both figures.

    Replies: @kahein

    what it says is that the actual history of gun regulation is massively different than your gaseous atavistic phantasies of what you want it to be, or saw on youtube. as i said elsewhere (and was censored) the population of colonial cities circa ratification was frequently under 20,000 (eg, boston) — barely a highway-exit shithole town by modern standards (eg, like your home). population density overall in the colonies was something like 1 cap per 4.5 sq miles lol

    ie, your “originalist” metaphantasy/larp is like everything else in your offbrand-nazi imaginarium: a load of mendacious midwit bullshit

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @kahein


    what it says is that the actual history of gun regulation is massively different than [sic] your gaseous atavistic phantasies
     
    "what it [doesn't say] is that the actual history of gun regulation is massively [exemplary of 'systemic racism']."

    Never mind the the Second, the Fourteenth is all over this issue. How much of this early gun regulation predated it, and would be in violation thereof?

    A very interesting case is Nunn v Georgia. That state banned handguns for all (too may duels), and there was no RKBA in the state's constitution. (Unlike, say, New York's , which had one of the fiercest.) The state supreme court chose to throw the statute out based on the US Constitution instead. Using the Second, I think, but there is also that clause requiring the states to supply their militias to the President when necessary. A state has to have a militia to be able to do that.
    , @Curle
    @kahein

    Stop while you’re behind. You read an incoherent (for purposes of understanding the second amendment) article in a magazine that targets sub-literates and now you feel the need to pursue an irrelevant point to your further embarrassment in public.

    There is absolutely nothing you’ve pointed to in your posts that illuminates in any way matters relevant to the matters at hand in the recent litigation. I’m sure you are capable of rendering an endless list of irrelevant observations but please don’t.

  298. @Achmed E. Newman
    @nebulafox

    Hell, I don't know who that is, Neil Kinnock, Franco? I'm pretty sure that's not Sam Donaldson.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix?

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  299. @Achmed E. Newman
    @nebulafox

    Hell, I don't know who that is, Neil Kinnock, Franco? I'm pretty sure that's not Sam Donaldson.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    It’s literally Sulla.

  300. @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    Even the sainted Ruthie though Roe went too far:

    For the record, those calling for violence in the name of Ginsburg (i.e., “Ruth Was Here”) don’t reflect her thinking at all. She thought Roe v. Wade went too far. “Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”

    Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case. “Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” she said. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”

    Ginsburg went on to contrast the court’s landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down “a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex.” Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, “the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government…In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions,” Ginsburg noted. “The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate.”

  301. @That Would Be Telling
    @sb


    You will get a lot of argument saying that Britain doesn’t have a Constitution.
    What it doesn’t have is one document called The Constitution which can only be changed by means much more difficult than that required to change lesser legislation.
     
    Which in the US context means no constitution at all.

    The best illustration of this I know of is that if we had a Westminster Parliamentary system like Britain's, a President and a majority in the House could change the Senate into a body who's members are chosen by the President. Which New Labour sort of did in 1999.

    Replies: @Gamecock

    10-4. I was baffled by Theresa May declaring Net Zero by 2050 . . . and that’s it, it’s the law (!).

  302. @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    States that go for really tough restriction on abortion may find themselves back on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges of attempting to establish religious beliefs as law.
     
    All law is normative and therefore based on belief. And all belief is de facto religious. So all law is religious. The only question is which religion.

    Furthermore, this English public schoolboy notion of being "on the naughty step in front of the Supreme Court on charges" is ... well, there's a lot wrong with it, philosophically, legally, jurisdictionally, and aesthetically, but mostly it's just cringe, as the kids say. Since you're not American and don't understand America, I won't trouble you with the rest of it.

    mail order abortions will become more common, and well-connected medical corporations will develop Underground Railroad abortion routes to points of service in other states for those who want them–at a huge price with payment plans, of course–and a profitable new norm will take over. The states that maintain legal abortion on demand will now have a valuable export commodity and be able to develop a medical tourism industry with high interest abortion day loans.
     
    This is ... hyperbolic. In fact, yesterday's ruling will make almost no difference in actual abortions. By a weird coincidence, states that dislike abortion already don't have abortion providers:
    https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/720/90/sites/default/files/20220507_GDP205_0.jpg
    Women in those states already go elsewhere to get abortions, no leftwing fever dream of "Underground Railroads" required.

    At bottom, these rulings are not really about abortions or even about guns. They are about restoring a semblance of Constitutional order.

    One safe way to transport knocked-up teenagers to free states would be for them to travel in white vans with blacked out windows and ILLEGAL ALIENS OF FLORIDA painted in large letters on the outside, which will guarantee them safe passage.
     
    Okay, that's an amusing (though inaccurate, see above) jest. Maybe you're starting to understand the current regime a bit after all.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any correlation between states that enact tough bans on abortions within their borders and states that formerly had slave economies.
     
    Not really, see the above map. There is however a near perfect correlation between the political party that was pro-slavery and is pro-abortion.

    Replies: @Jack D, @epebble

    This article has an uncanny mid nineteenth century feel to it:

    Chasm opens between states over abortion pills and out-of-state care

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chasm-opens-between-states-over-abortion-pills-and-out-of-state-care/ar-AAYRJwN

  303. @michael droy
    So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws. If popular opinion changes on DUI levels of intoxication, on the right to carry arms, on when abortion is legal, on gay sex or gay marriage, pretty soon the law will get changed - BY Parliament.

    In US it seems congress/Senate does none of these things. If popular opinion changes you have to rely on it working through to the Supreme Court Judges, who don't change the law, they just bend the interpretations a bit further. So the 1787 constitution is interpreted 180 years later to have meant in 1787 on thing. Later on (Roe vs Wade) it is interpreted as having meant - again in 1787 - another thing, and now 235 years after they now interpret it as meaning - in 1787 - something different. Its an obvious sham.

    The US doesn't have a Legislative Process!! WTF are the courts doing deciding these things. That is the job of Congress/Senate.

    (Don't get me started on the US voting system.)

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Almost Missouri, @Reg Cæsar, @Gordo, @sb, @Kylie

    “So in Britain we have no constitution at all, but we do have a Parliamentary system which constantly amends laws.”

    How nice for you.

    “(Don’t get me started on the US voting system.)”

    Don’t worry, we won’t. We’re just sorry you got yourself started on the superiority of your Parliamentary system.

    Though I must say you have some justification for your obvious feeling of superiority. You Brits managed to dump the dim ginger on us, you know, the royal pain who, as an uninvited and unwelcome guest, felt entitled to declare our First Amendment “bonkers”.

  304. @jb
    @Prester John

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a "person" under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Gamecock

    Do you honestly believe a fertilized egg should be considered a “person” under the law? If not, then people need to agree on where to draw the line. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as supporting infanticide is not helpful.

    Abortion is an anomaly legally in my mind.

    First, understand liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government.

    It is self evident to me that aborting a fertilized egg before it has even implanted in the uterus is fine. I don’t care. It is also self evident that killing a baby at full-term 9 months is wrong.

    The problem is, drawing the line will perforce be arbitrary. Any selected period is simply arbitrary.

    Abortion is that very odd case where government must be arbitrary, and it is not tyranny.

    • Replies: @jb
    @Gamecock

    I don't know, it seems to me that governments are forced to make arbitrary decisions all the time. Consider speed limits on highways. Should they be set at 25mph or 100mph (or not set at all)? Any decision is arbitrary -- it all depends on what The People want. If they value saving lives over getting where they are going quickly then a low limit is appropriate; if the reverse then the limit should be high. But any decision will necessarily be arbitrary, a compromise, and you can only hope that The People don't disagree about it so strongly that it leads to conflict. How is this different from the case of abortion? (Or indeed, 90% of the decisions a government is called upon to make...).

    Replies: @Gamecock

    , @Redman
    @Gamecock

    But then why can’t each state (political grouping) make its own “arbitrary” decision on the matter? That’s what the Dobbs ruling basically does. Kicks it back to the states with the right to be arbitrary and left alone.

    The country has dozens if not hundreds of laws that substantially differ among states based on arbitrary decisions by state legislatures. That’s how democratic politics works.

  305. @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    Yeah, I was butting in to point out that at some point there is absolutely no denying that it's a life. And, on that note, in fact, "Doctors now consider 22 weeks the earliest gestational age when a baby is "viable," or able to survive outside the womb." Might seem like splitting hairs, but, again, it's a life.

    Replies: @Jack D

    So is a fertilized apple seed the same as an apple tree? An egg the same thing as a chicken? Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.

    Like many things in law there is a line drawing issue. Philosophers and religious zealots are not good at line drawing but lawmakers who live in the real world do this all the time. How fast is “too fast”? How can it be that 70 mph is not “too fast” but 71 is? Because you gotta draw lines somewhere in order to live in the real world.

    1 day is too soon (for most sane people – as I mentioned before this would make the Pill illegal) and after 24 weeks is too late. A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus. At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby. And indeed this is where most civilized countries draw the line.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    "A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus."

    I think it was Thomas Sowell who said something like "There are no solutions, only compromises." I disagree with your use of the word "sane" but I have always supported making a trade with the babykilling industry--you have the first trimester to betray your hippocratic oath for profit. After that, you're going to prison. And of course there should be exceptions, but these should be strictly monitored and regulated. Doesn't every pregnancy technically put the mother's life at risk? Doesn't every woman stand a good chance of experiencing postpartum depression? These are not legitimate excuses to kill a viable baby. "This would cause problems for me financially and it might hurt my new relationship" are other examples that don't cut it.

    "At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby."

    That's subjective. I've been to premie labs and seen many babies you might also not consider a baby, but there are alive, outside of the mother's womb, and they grow up to be adults. Many babies that age are killed in elective abortions. That is as wrong as wrong gets. And the consequence is not simply the snuffing out of innocent human lives, but the impact it has a society's broader moral compass.

    And why are the fathers who don't want the abortion to happen never discussed? Imagine you're a guy who impregnates your sweetheart, but then, at 9 weeks, she decides to kill it because she doesn't want to derail her career as an HR department harpy. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it:

    "What started as a small grain of salt is now as big as a grape. Your baby in 9th week of pregnancy would also be of the size of a cherry or a green olive. It has by now started growing arms, elbows and tiny toes from its buds. The elbows may also be able to bend at 9 weeks pregnant.
    Your baby in 9th week of pregnancy would additionally grow its ears, eyelids, nipples and hair follicles. It would have its head straightened out. Along with this, the development of liver, gallbladder, spleen and adrenal gland would take place. Another good news is the fact that your sweet cherry has started moving. Though you may not be able to feel these movements for another few months. You can still hear the baby’s heartbeat through a doppler device."

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote:


    A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant ...
     
    I was recently talking to a neighbor who is a liberal Jewish doctor who was complaining about SCOTUS upholding the Mississippi law.

    He said that he thought the limit should be 15 weeks.

    Which is the Mississippi law.

    Similarly, this afternoon I was talking to a relative of my wife's who said she is fairly liberal on abortion.

    She thinks 15 weeks is a good number.

    There is a lot more consensus on this issue that the national media seem to think.

    Replies: @Anon7

    , @Dumbo
    @Jack D

    Blabablah. There is no "good limit". Once it's an embryo, it's already a life. Saying "2 weeks", "15 weeks", whatever, it's window-dressing. Once there's an embryo, it's life.

    I guess, for Jack D, a good Russian is a dead Russian, and a good baby is a dead baby.

    Don't be a fool. If you want to be pro-abortion, that's fine, but don't come with sophistry or lies. It means killing an already existing life.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    An egg the same thing as a chicken?
     
    You should stop writing about something about which you know nothing.

    A chicken egg is like a human egg - it is not fertilized. That's right, bucko, hens lay eggs without roosters.

    A baby in a lady's belly has a different genetic makeup than the lady herself (but also a different genetic makeup from the biological father too). He is a new person with his own unique combination of genes. Do you need the birds and the bees talk?

    Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.
     
    Do "full grown babies" look like adult humans if you looked at them with a microscope?
  306. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    One general feeling I have is that the U.S. is an awfully big country, so if it wants to stay together, it needs a fair amount of room for each state to enact laws that are suitable for its own people.

    So what suits New Yorkers may not suit Virginians. I think that is what the Founding Fathers generally had in mind.

    Now how do you reconcile that with (according to the current court) the idea that the Constitution does not set any limits on state's rights to regulate abortion but it DOES set limits on state's rights to regulate gun ownership?

    That is easy peasy - the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press. No one would buy it if the government said you could have a printing press, but only if you demonstrated a legitimate need to own one.

    As for abortion, the Constitution doesn't say a goddamn word and if they had it would have been negative because it was widely understood to be a crime at common law and neither the Founders or the enactors of the 14th Amendment had any intention or thought that abortion was some sort of fundamental right. No one, not even radical feminists, thought this before the 1960s at the earliest. The suffragettes fought for the vote but not a word from them about abortion.

    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier. But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.

    Replies: @epebble, @Twinkie, @Patrick Gibbs, @AnotherDad, @JimDandy, @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    the Constitution addresses gun ownership head on as #2 in the bill of fundamental rights, right after a free press

    No, it addresses arms ownership.

  307. @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson



    In the event of you having to pull out a concealed weapon and use it, then any legal charges for carrying a concealed weapon will probably be the least of your problems.
     
    If you really want to get around the law then start a fake business that requires being armed.
     
    All bad advice. If you have to use a concealed weapon, unless you think you can avoid dealing with the authorities forever which is increasingly unlikely as more and more cheap cameras record things, including those wielded in smartphones, you need to be as pure as the driven snow like Rittenhouse to have the best chance of dealing with the really serious felony charges. Which are a lot more likely if you're breaking the law to begin with. Not to mention it's imperative to be the first to contact the authorities, in practice that person is by default the good guy, whereas fleeing is taken as a sign of guilt.

    And if they can't get you on those, they'll certainly go for the maximum punishment for the carry crime, plus you'll probably lose in civil court as Bernhard Goetz did. This also removes the possibility of prepaid concealed carry "insurance," I recommend CCW Safe but there are too few data points to know if they'll be a good bet in the long term.

    And if your self-defense becomes at all notorious, or in the situation where the authorities are so anti-gun you can only do a fake business thing, they'll put you under a microscope and probably charge you with additional felonies for the fraud you actually did commit.

    Seriously, seriously learn about this stuff. The old, perhaps original classic is Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme and I'm sure it's still useful as will most of what he's written. I also highly recommend the first Stressfire book, his safety video, and his old The Truth About Self-Protection which covers just about every relevant topic, it for example first told me about Abloy, probably the word's top lock manufacturer.

    The most modern one and it's pretty good is the third edition of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen by Branca but its state by state tables of law and more critically case law are now six or more years out of date (BIG WARNING: judges like to nullify white line statutory law). OK, let me shill some more for CCW Safe, they put out a constant stream of media in all forms to help you and them avoid having to use them for real, or keeping yourself on the straight and narrow so you'll win your case if it goes into the courts.

    All that I've examined in detail, which is only written stuff, is of high quality, their top legal mind was the lead attorney for George Zimmerman, and a lot if not most of it is based on actual cases, but they also have lots of general good advice and discussion of all types.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    And if your self-defense becomes at all notorious, or in the situation where the authorities are so anti-gun you can only do a fake business thing

    You start a fake security business.

    You get the permit.

    What are you afraid of? The authorities finding out your business is a flop? They aren’t going to audit your business after a self-defense case and even if they did you still wouldn’t be breaking the law.

    It is the local authority that granted the permit. There isn’t a requirement that you have a successful and thriving business with verified clients. If you met the requirements then there is nothing to worry about.

    I started a security business and it hasn’t gone well.

    That is all you have to say.

    Do you have any idea of how many losing businesses the wealthy create to get around taxes? It’s called a tax sink. They create a business in a small town for the purpose of having a loss to take against capital gains.

    It isn’t a crime or fraud to have a lousy business. It’s completely legal and half the stores you see in small towns that don’t even get \$50 a day in revenue are tax sinks. That’s how they stay open. It’s a planned loss and perfectly legal. Even the large corps do it. They create a shell company to absorb losses or debt.

    • Replies: @Random Anonymous
    @John Johnson

    How is it to a company's advantage to lose $1 in order to save $0.36 (or whatever the number is) on capital gains taxes?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ&t=19s

    Replies: @John Johnson

  308. @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    So is a fertilized apple seed the same as an apple tree? An egg the same thing as a chicken? Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.

    Like many things in law there is a line drawing issue. Philosophers and religious zealots are not good at line drawing but lawmakers who live in the real world do this all the time. How fast is "too fast"? How can it be that 70 mph is not "too fast" but 71 is? Because you gotta draw lines somewhere in order to live in the real world.

    1 day is too soon (for most sane people - as I mentioned before this would make the Pill illegal) and after 24 weeks is too late. A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus. At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby. And indeed this is where most civilized countries draw the line.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @PhysicistDave, @Dumbo, @Twinkie

    “A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus.”

    I think it was Thomas Sowell who said something like “There are no solutions, only compromises.” I disagree with your use of the word “sane” but I have always supported making a trade with the babykilling industry–you have the first trimester to betray your hippocratic oath for profit. After that, you’re going to prison. And of course there should be exceptions, but these should be strictly monitored and regulated. Doesn’t every pregnancy technically put the mother’s life at risk? Doesn’t every woman stand a good chance of experiencing postpartum depression? These are not legitimate excuses to kill a viable baby. “This would cause problems for me financially and it might hurt my new relationship” are other examples that don’t cut it.

    “At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby.”

    That’s subjective. I’ve been to premie labs and seen many babies you might also not consider a baby, but there are alive, outside of the mother’s womb, and they grow up to be adults. Many babies that age are killed in elective abortions. That is as wrong as wrong gets. And the consequence is not simply the snuffing out of innocent human lives, but the impact it has a society’s broader moral compass.

    And why are the fathers who don’t want the abortion to happen never discussed? Imagine you’re a guy who impregnates your sweetheart, but then, at 9 weeks, she decides to kill it because she doesn’t want to derail her career as an HR department harpy. And there’s not a damned thing you can do about it:

    “What started as a small grain of salt is now as big as a grape. Your baby in 9th week of pregnancy would also be of the size of a cherry or a green olive. It has by now started growing arms, elbows and tiny toes from its buds. The elbows may also be able to bend at 9 weeks pregnant.
    Your baby in 9th week of pregnancy would additionally grow its ears, eyelids, nipples and hair follicles. It would have its head straightened out. Along with this, the development of liver, gallbladder, spleen and adrenal gland would take place. Another good news is the fact that your sweet cherry has started moving. Though you may not be able to feel these movements for another few months. You can still hear the baby’s heartbeat through a doppler device.”

  309. @AnotherDad
    @Anon7

    Anon7 -- no argument.

    Of course, Biden is saying that--anything to distract from his record--and the Parasite Party will try and run on that.

    I'm just saying, that while i think this does work against Republicans by providing this distraction, it is not going to work. The Supreme Court did not "outlaw abortion". It put it back where it was before 1973--a ho-hum state law issue. And by the fall, most everyone who is actually "up for grabs" politically will understand that.

    In contrast, the Parasite Party's "let's print more money for more parasites!" extravaganza while slapping down energy production--treating all actual productive activity with contempt--offers the prospect of roaring inflation and recession. Not a winner.

    Replies: @Anon7

    I’m hoping that Democrats are forced to face the facts of Joe Biden’s disastrous presidency this fall, and that the Republicans wind up with a majority in both houses of Congress.

    But I don’t think it will happen. The Left controls the media, and its narrative, and they’ve been very successful in controlling our nation, its policies and its politics, by fear.

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    H.L. Mencken

  310. @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    So is a fertilized apple seed the same as an apple tree? An egg the same thing as a chicken? Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.

    Like many things in law there is a line drawing issue. Philosophers and religious zealots are not good at line drawing but lawmakers who live in the real world do this all the time. How fast is "too fast"? How can it be that 70 mph is not "too fast" but 71 is? Because you gotta draw lines somewhere in order to live in the real world.

    1 day is too soon (for most sane people - as I mentioned before this would make the Pill illegal) and after 24 weeks is too late. A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus. At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby. And indeed this is where most civilized countries draw the line.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @PhysicistDave, @Dumbo, @Twinkie

    Jack D wrote:

    A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant …

    I was recently talking to a neighbor who is a liberal Jewish doctor who was complaining about SCOTUS upholding the Mississippi law.

    He said that he thought the limit should be 15 weeks.

    Which is the Mississippi law.

    Similarly, this afternoon I was talking to a relative of my wife’s who said she is fairly liberal on abortion.

    She thinks 15 weeks is a good number.

    There is a lot more consensus on this issue that the national media seem to think.

    • Agree: JimDandy, Rosie
    • Replies: @Anon7
    @PhysicistDave

    Nationwide, according to polls, 80% of men and women (both) support some form of abortion. There are a few states in which there are enough voters who oppose abortion in any form to make it interesting, but this issue is all but decided in most states.

    So why all the hullabaloo? Voter distraction, that’s all.

    I’ll be interested to see if Democrats can approach it as “15 weeks on demand”, or if they’ll try for more, calling for unlimited abortion on demand. The Left is an anaconda, it can’t help trying to squeeze harder. Their goal is to destroy the country, after all, not simply to win elections.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @JimDandy

  311. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    This is not to say that abortion should be completely illegal. Given who gets abortions, I say the more the merrier.
     
    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity. Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    But this is a subject for the voters and legislators of each state and not for the Federal government to decide.
     
    The 10th Amendment is probably the most violated and eviscerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wish the SCOTUS would really go originalist in protecting it. I can co-exist with leftist crazies in the same country so long as they would let me live in a state of my own choosing that would be left alone, but, alas, leftist crazies seem increasingly eliminationlist.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Anonymous, @Curle, @Jack D, @International Jew, @Pixo, @V. K. Ovelund, @AndrewR

    This is a hell of a topic, old friend.

    I was with you on the topic until you wrote the above monstrosity.

    I am still with him.

    Baby-killing utilitarianism is still baby-killing.

    You and I are simply not going to agree on this. I very strongly, urgently believe that the principle of subsidiarity governs here. When it comes to abortion, it is of utmost relevance that, so long as abortion is not practiced among your kin nor mine but only among strangers, neither the killer nor the killed has anything to do with you or me.

    The state incarcerates murderers mainly because, if left free, murderers are a threat to you and yours, to me and mine. The states does not incarcerate aborters because, if left free, aborters are no threat to you and yours, to me and mine.

    Starting about sixteen years from now, numerous innocent nonblacks who would otherwise have lived are certain to lose their lives to black violence as a result of today’s imminent abortion restriction. I grasp that Catholic teaching distinguishes intrinsic evils from contingent evils but the distinction is too theoretical in this instance. Innocent nonblacks are going to die, maybe including your grandchild or mine.

    That’s not okay with me.

    I am sorry, but had it right.

    • Disagree: JimDandy, Redman
    • Replies: @TWS
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You are a monster. Own it. At least have the decency to declare, "Nits make lice!" With vigour and without reservation.

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I am sorry, but @Jack D had it right.
     
    No he doesn't.

    Starting about sixteen years from now, numerous innocent nonblacks who would otherwise have lived are certain to lose their lives to black violence as a result of today’s imminent abortion restriction.
     
    I understand better than most what black violence is like - I grew up with it.

    But understand also that as much as blacks are - as a group - far more homicidal, violent, and criminal on average than other races, the majority of blacks are NOT homicidal, violent, or criminal people. Condemning the whole race of people who are our fellow citizens and endorsing their murder as unborn babies is inhumane. And people who are that callow inevitably turn their attention on others next - even within their own group whom they deem as unworthy of company (it's for the same reason I condemn and disparage another commenter here who go on and on about "white nationalists" as "genetically defective," "subhuman waste matter" among whites).

    Afterall, if you condemn whole races for high criminality, then the next will be Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics, and then whites (whose fraction of violent criminals were FOUR times that of the Asian counterpart per capita in 2020 in the U.S.), and only Asians will be left in this country. Is that what you advocate? ;)

    I grasp that Catholic teaching distinguishes intrinsic evils from contingent evils but the distinction is too theoretical in this instance.
     
    Infanticide is not theoretical, no matter what the race of the baby is.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @V. K. Ovelund

  312. @Muggles
    @Jonathan Mason

    Texas is ready to go its own way again.

    Maybe let OK, LA and NM tag along too. We get to keep the military bases/nukes already based here.

    Maybe let a couple of the adjacent Rep. of Mexico states join as affiliated territories. Clean out the cartels and use the unemployed sicarros for "migrant" control.

    The (New) Republican Federation of Texas would have an ass kicking military. We'd have to uh, "borrow" most of our Navy from elsewhere. I'm sure a few Admirals would move in with fleets.

    "Woke" would soon sink under the weight of being ignored or ridiculed. Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists. Max Boot would not be admitted.

    Sounds like Plan A to me...

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Muggles wrote:

    Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists.

    My step-grandmother is born and bred deep in the heart of Texas, now in her early nineties.

    Three decades ago, she started chatting with me about a case for which she had been on the jury involving some poor guy who was up for marijuana possession. She thought is was stupid and cruel to put a guy in jail for using pot.

    No, she has never used pot and does not think people should. And I do not think anyone has ever accused her of being a “liberal.”

    She just thinks Americans let other people live their own lives and make their own mistakes.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    FWIW, Texas has always been more de facto if not de jure socially liberal than the Deep South when it comes to substance stuff: much more live and let live. Chalk it up to the Western influence.

    What is so appealing about re-inventing school days for some people, when everything you could do was under the appeal of authorities that knew better than you did? At least back then, it has... a semi-basis in reality. But seriously. That still sucked.

    >But, somehow, I lack the urge to control other people’s lives.

    Ditto. On some tacit level, that's the final barrier to maturity, the willingness to embrace the world and give up abstractions on how it should work.

    , @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “She just thinks Americans let other people live their own lives and make their own mistakes.”

    Sure, but apropos of conversations occurring in this thread, she was on an Texas jury considering application of Texas law. Were she thinking like a Founder her thoughts would have been “[Texans] live their own lives and make their own mistakes.” This is the way Americans viewed the world before the civil war and for decades following. Being an American was not an particularly useful reference point for understanding the application of laws regulating most common matters.

  313. @Rosie
    @Dmon


    Perfect response. Suddenly, we have all these strict constructionists claiming to have such a profound respect for the 9th amendment, arguing that abortion is a right because the constitution doesn’t prohibit it.
     
    No, no, no, no! Literally noone is arguing that. That is not even what the 9A says!

    The general rule of construction is that lists are exhaustive (expresio unius exclusio alterius). The Framers specifically ruled out that inference in the 9A. It does not say that the Constitution protects everything that it does not specifically prohibited. That's retarded.

    The point of the whole substantive due process line of cases is that the enumerated rights a long shadow or "penumbra." An example: The Constitution doesn't specifically provide you with the right to send your child to private school, but it does provide you with the rights to freedom of expression and religion, and that the right to send your child to a private school is necessary for those rights to be fully actualized.

    You can disagree or not, bit please spare us the ridiculous straw man about the Constitution protecting abortion simply because it is not specifically prohibited. Please, it's obvious that you're not a lawyer. Of course, you6still entitled to your opinion, but please, make it an informed opinion or just STFU.

    Mike's other argument, thatmthe fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life, is just begging the question.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Dmon

    Penumbras, huh? They had abortion back at the time the constitution was written, and they had state abortion laws on the books for about 200 years, and somehow no one before Harry Blackmun ever thought that this was a violation of a natural right under the penumbra of some enumerated right. So what you’ve got is a politicized opinion wrested into being a constitutional right to satisfy some influential lobby, and being overturned about half a century later – pretty much the same as Plessy v Ferguson.
    Your private school argument is BS – there were damn few free public schools in 1787 America. No one would have needed a penumbra to figure on that being a natural right. Let’s go with something a little more on topic. Is polygamy a natural right? If not, why not? If 3 people and a horse want to get married as part of their religion, how can any state law prevent that? How about Sacred Prostitution?
    You have at various times on this site advocated that laws should be arranged such that certain occupations employ an equal number of women as men, and that men should be legally discriminated against to achieve this outcome. Can you please provide your informed opinion as a legal retard as to how this is compatible with the 14th Amendment equal protection clause? Or feel free to STFU.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Dmon


    You have at various times on this site advocated that laws should be arranged such that certain occupations employ an equal number of women as men, and that men should be legally discriminated against to achieve this outcome.
     
    You're a liar. I have literally never, ever made such an argument on this site or anywhere else. Produce an example or apologize, a$$hole.

    there were damn few free public schools in 1787 America.
     
    So what? That's no longer the case. How does it follow that the state may not mandate public school attendance now in the absence of an implied Constitutional right to privacy? There is no "natural right" argument in Constitutional law. A statute either violates an express or implied Constitutional guarantee or it does not.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska

    The legal theory that has been used to infer a right to direct the education of one's children has now been called into serious question. That you think it is a "natural right" isn't going to do blue-state homeschoolers any good. Meanwhile, shitlibs can just drive to another state to get their abortions.

    Indeed, now that parents' rights have been seriously undermined, the "natural rights" argument can be used for all sorts of mischief. What happens when your son comes home and says he's really a girl and wants to transition? You say no, then CPS comes and takes him because you have failed to honor his human rights. I don't know why you think the government won't use its new powers against the people it hates. I guess, like Alec, you still think this is your country.

    Replies: @kahein, @Dmon, @Curle

  314. @Curle
    @Patrick Gibbs

    “There was a coordinated smear campaign in the early 2000s on e.g. The Daily Show to lampoon the idea of states’ rights and associate it in the minds of the public with drooling reactionary morons from the South who do not understand REAL history “

    Yes, there was such an campaign and that was its purpose.”

    “Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart”

    They are both full on Bolsheviks. Remember, Bolsheviks were accommodating to monopoly capitalists. It was the middle people, the bourgeoisie, they wanted to disable through divide and conquer conflict with the working class.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton (1974) is well worth reading.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Curle wrote:

    [Patrick Gibbs]“Probably, these two trends are related: both the militant left and the neocon right are Trotskyite at heart”

    [Carle] They are both full on Bolsheviks. Remember, Bolsheviks were accommodating to monopoly capitalists. It was the middle people, the bourgeoisie, they wanted to disable through divide and conquer conflict with the working class.

    They just cannot bring themselves simply to leave other people alone.

    I am a bright, highly-educated person. I have some pretty definite ideas as to how other people should live their lives, and, alas, they do not always live their lives as I think they should.

    But, somehow, I lack the urge to control other people’s lives. I have this nagging suspicion that, just maybe, they know more about their own lives than I do.

    There is a deep sickness in the soul of people who cannot resist trying to control their fellow human beings.

    • Agree: Adam Smith, Mike Tre
  315. @Achmed E. Newman
    @The Real World

    High School biology was a long time ago, we spent the time drawing penises in various places on the illustrations, and they didn't have HowStuffWorks.com back then. So, you are right about the doctors, but, yeah, it could be just 7 hours later.

    Lucky for us, it all went well even without a refresher course and without the internet.

    Sorry for my error. What does "Smh" mean, "so much horniness"?

    .

    PS: My wife "wasn't so sure" about her whole pregnancy thing that first day or two. I was having none of that. She'd be ashamed of her former self at this point, were I to bring it up, which I never would. It's unthinkable at this point.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @The Real World

    Well, at least you’re decent about it and accept your error. Most wouldn’t; they prefer to continue emitting their ignorant hubris.

    Smh = abbreviation for: shaking my head.
    (But, I can see the application of your definition too…lol. That means: laughing out loud.)

    Conception doesn’t happen in 7 hours. Days after…it is not known when it has completed and a pregnancy has begun..

  316. @Achmed E. Newman
    @nebulafox

    Hell, I don't know who that is, Neil Kinnock, Franco? I'm pretty sure that's not Sam Donaldson.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    A more likely scenario for a re-paganized age than a nu-Francisco Franco. That, or I radically underestimate the permanence of the potential forces of decentralization taking off right now. One of the two.

    Pentagon brass going out there now. While I think the actual fracas around this “case” is wildly overstated, what people believe it to be is not.

  317. @PhysicistDave
    @Muggles

    Muggles wrote:


    Texas is pretty tolerant of most people and beliefs, other than criminals and Oligarchical Imperialists.
     
    My step-grandmother is born and bred deep in the heart of Texas, now in her early nineties.

    Three decades ago, she started chatting with me about a case for which she had been on the jury involving some poor guy who was up for marijuana possession. She thought is was stupid and cruel to put a guy in jail for using pot.

    No, she has never used pot and does not think people should. And I do not think anyone has ever accused her of being a "liberal."

    She just thinks Americans let other people live their own lives and make their own mistakes.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle

    FWIW, Texas has always been more de facto if not de jure socially liberal than the Deep South when it comes to substance stuff: much more live and let live. Chalk it up to the Western influence.

    What is so appealing about re-inventing school days for some people, when everything you could do was under the appeal of authorities that knew better than you did? At least back then, it has… a semi-basis in reality. But seriously. That still sucked.

    >But, somehow, I lack the urge to control other people’s lives.

    Ditto. On some tacit level, that’s the final barrier to maturity, the willingness to embrace the world and give up abstractions on how it should work.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  318. @AKAHorace
    @Dutch Boy


    Cole is a Jew who dislikes children. Abortion is something like a Jewish sacrament and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to get abortion legalized.
     
    That is a pretty foolish argument. If you want to get ethnically abusive, what about the Dutch ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

    States where abortion is popular (Democratic states) are not going to go Red anyway. States where it is unpopular (Republican states) will not go blue because of abortion especially with the economic meltdown now in progress. Abortion is just not a big issue for most voters.
     
    US elections are not won on hard Blue or Red states so much as by swing voters in purple states. A lot of the US right are extreme on unimportant unpopular matters so that they loose ground on the important questions.

    https://www.takimag.com/article/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-a-maga/

    https://www.takimag.com/article/aborting-trumpism/

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

    Cole has written that he dislikes children. He also thinks its okay to abort Down Syndrome children. It is just a plain fact that Jews as a group are strongly pro-abortion and were particularly active in seeking to legalize it. That we are in an economic meltdown (that will get much worse before it gets better) is also a fact. It is a wave that will swallow any ripples caused by abortion.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Dutch Boy

    Jews are prone to genetic diseases, abortion is a tool they use to weed out unwanted progeny.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

  319. @Nico
    (Full disclosure: I am a Catholic; you may read whatever biases you like into my discourse.) The problem is that a society which cares not one whit about the sort of its posterity is not a society which can be saved by a salutary sentence, however prettily penned.

    Now, to be sure, as a normie white guy, I care not one whit about the orcs sired by baby daddies over in Section 8 or popped out by Mammacitas projected from the central part of the continent. I do not value their lives and my own life, the lives of my posterity and those of people “like me” and of their posterity would be infinitely better off with a significant reduction in (if not elimination of) their numbers. One of the reasons I decided not to actively participate in the “pro-life” movement much was that I was singularly disinterested in “celebrating life” whenever a new one was “saved” from the butcher counter. So shouldn’t I support maintaining the status quo on abortion which affects their offspring disproportionately?

    Thing is, the buck doesn’t stop there. Because, since 1948 and 1965/1986, whites like me have been effectively denied any means of protecting ourselves from home-grown and invading orcs except by projection of a right-to-eliminate healthy AND unhealthy offspring which must apply across-the-board, energizing any white girl who goes slightly astray to fly WAY off the railroad and become irremediable, and make no mistake: we have lost a number of genetically fine specimens this way. (No, abortion is not the only fuel in the motor corrupting white girls but it DEFINITELY doesn’t help.) For those of us normie whites who actually DO care about white posterity, this unholy dynamic can’t be counted on as a permanent solution to the Great Replacement.

    So what about the election? Well, at the fringes, the GOP may well lose enough Catholic monomaniac right-to-lifers and “fiscally-conservative” white yuppie women while energizing a few crazy freaks on the other side to prevent a recapture of the Senate, maybe even the House, and to impede a “clean sweep” of governorships à la 2014. But that’s not the full story. If it forces the GOP to actually defend American families on something more than (let’s face it) what amounts to an abstraction in the minds of most people pulling the lever on day D, this ruling can’t help but be good for American electoral politics.

    Replies: @Chebyshev

    The very religious subset of whites with high birth rates will be unaffected, because they don’t get abortions. Very rich whites will be unaffected, because they can fly to states with legal abortion. But very poor whites in red and purple states will have more kids because of this ruling. It may also mean more mulattoes.

    • Agree: kahein
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Chebyshev


    The very religious subset of whites with high birth rates will be unaffected
     
    As I have explained elsewhere, if this ruling winds up undermining the right to homeschool, it will reduce birthrates among religious, conservative Whites. They're not going to want to send their kids to public school, and if they have to send them to private religious schools, they'll pay by the child, and Mom will probably have to go back to work to pay the tuition. No way would I have been able to afford my 6 without homeschooling.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  320. @JR Ewing
    @Corn

    The issue at hand is whether states can have a “may issue” (ie discretionary) concealed weapons regime or if they are obligated to have “shall issue” policy that gives a permit to all qualified applicants who ask for one. They can still put conditions on who is eligible and how to get one, but once those conditions are met, they can no longer deny a license for discretionary reasons (ie “tell us why you think you need it and we’ll see if we agree, but we probably don’t unless you are rich or famous”).

    What is not immediately clear to me is if states can completely ban legal concealed carry by private citizens altogether or if concealed carry itself is now required to be allowed everywhere, with local licensing requirements and conditions. My guess is the latter based on what I have read so far, but I haven’t seen that specific question asked.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    What is not immediately clear to me is if states can completely ban legal concealed carry by private citizens altogether or if concealed carry itself is now required to be allowed everywhere, with local licensing requirements and conditions.

    The ruling doesn’t tell states/cities what ‘flavor’ of carry, only that they all allow some form of carry for normal citizens. The choices are: concealed and/or open (carrier’s whim), open only, or concealed only. In blue jurisdictions, it will be concealed only.

    • Thanks: JR Ewing
  321. @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling

    Volokh's essay is basically a template for how the Leftist state governments are going to push the ruling:


    1. This right can be limited to the extent that there is a historical tradition of limitation
     
    Dig up obscure historical parallels and claim that your new law is the same as the restriction that they had in Massachusetts in 1826 and no one ever complained about it back then.

    The right can also be limited by regulations that impose only a modest burden on law-abiding people's ability to defend themselves.
     
    Push the limits of what is "modest" . Gun ownership can be limited to "law-abiding, responsible citizens". Are you white and have you ever had a traffic ticket or not paid your taxes? Maybe you are not a responsible citizen.

    Restrictions on carrying in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings":
     
    What are other "sensitive places"? Churches? Shopping malls? Stadiums? Public recreational facilities? Bars and clubs? Anyplace where alcohol is sold (supermarkets)? I could think of a pretty long list of "sensitive places" which would include just about everywhere people actually go.

    nondiscretionary licensing restrictions, unless they involve "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees"
     
    How long is lengthy and how high a fee is exorbitant?

    Restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill:
     
    How do we know that you are not among the millions of white Americans who are among the undiagnosed mentally ill? Perhaps you need a mental health screening before we give you this permit? We see here in your dossier that during your divorce proceeding your ex-wife said that you had on multiple occasions threatened to "send her to the moon", Mr. Kramden. Is not support for Trump and his false election fraud claims itself a sign of mental illness?

    Restrictions on machineguns and other "dangerous and unusual" weapons—
     
    What is dangerous and unusual? AR-15 type guns? Large magazines, etc.?

    And so on. You could pass a law with a dozen booby-traps in it like this and spend years in court (and remember that many of the lower courts and appeals courts are dominated by Leftists) arguing over stuff like this.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jack, none of your above FUD speculation matters, because those blue municipalities are now stuck. That’s why Dem pols in the newly affected areas are impotently hopping mad about the ruling. Public property like subways, parks, and streets, and private property like stores, restaurants, etc. etc. are places thousands and thousands of newly unencumbered citizens are now going to be legally carrying concealed pistols.

    Everyday private establishments, taxis, etc. can post cute “No Weapons” signs but these are easily ignored unless your local Starbucks or Walgreens is also willing to put up guarded metal-detector entry points—not bloody likely (they’re not even stopping blatant thieves, LOL). But nightclubs and museums, etc. can still enforce, if they want, strict no-weapons policies due to inherently stricter physical entry/exit controls.

  322. Candidly, the Constitution and BOR as originally conceived weren’t incorporated as against the States, so it doesn’t really guarantee individual liberties against State interference.

    Yes, it does. If you want to go ahead and advocate for the overturning of Incorporation so that states can, say, draw and quarter people or whatever, go ahead. I don’t think you’ll find many takers. Apart from that, what are the demographics of the state you live in? Why on Earth would you want to empower hostile state governments just when you are about to become a minority? This may have been your country 50 years ago, but it isn’t now, okay boomer?

    Rights “reserved to the people” under the 9A would have been well-founded rights inherited from British law (and maintained by the colonial Courts), not as yet unheard of licenses to do things which British and colonial law clearly prohibited under criminal sanction. The Constitution was not, again, intended to be an exhaustive recitation of extant common law rights inuring to the individual. It is like saying “the 9A guarantees my right to horse thievery” or “the 9th Amendment guarantees my right to arson.”

    I’m not at all sure you’re right about abortion being illegal in colonial America, but even if you are, you completely ignore the possibility of unprecedented scenarios arising out of technological change. Had they foreseen the birth control pill, do you really think the Framers would have approved of government interference with married couples’ reproductive decisions? The guys who started a Revolution over a tax on their breakfast beverage? Seriously?

    You’re a lawyer, and as such you have no excuse for pretending that substantive due process is only about abortion. I am much more worried about parents’ rights.

    • Thanks: kahein
    • Replies: @Curle
    @Rosie

    “do you really think the Framers would have approved of government interference with married couples’ reproductive decisions?”

    The framers weren’t concerning themselves with state interference with abortions in any way shape or form.

    The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. Given the concerns about centralized power shared by Federalist and Anti-Federalists alike, this is no surprise. Federalist arguments for strong national power always presupposed strong power in states as well. Tellingly, all the states who proposed any amendments at all suggested the principle of the Tenth Amendment: if the Constitution does not give the national government a certain power, that power is kept by the states and the people. The idea that a distant national government knew better than the people of each individual state what kinds of laws that state should have would have been puzzling to most people during the Founding era and for the first century of the republic.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie asked:


    Had they foreseen the birth control pill, do you really think the Framers would have approved of government interference with married couples’ reproductive decisions?
     
    No, the Framers probably would have thought that state interference with contraception (as in the Griswold case) was really stupid.

    Indeed, Justice Potter Stewart described the Connecticut law as "uncommonly silly" (true!) but argued that it was nonetheless Constitutional.

    The fact that a policy is really stupid does not mean it is unconstitutional.

    Otherwise, a very large fraction of laws and public policies would be unconstitutional.

    (Not that I would object to that!)

    Replies: @Rosie

  323. @kahein
    the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers because -- just like you! -- they're shitty youtube-tier amateur historians

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/bruen-supreme-court-guns-mockery-originalism.html

    Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    the men of unz just love this new class of psychotic christo-fascist supreme courtiers

    So is it safe to say you’re squarely in the “Hoes Mad” category?

  324. @Dmon
    @Rosie

    Penumbras, huh? They had abortion back at the time the constitution was written, and they had state abortion laws on the books for about 200 years, and somehow no one before Harry Blackmun ever thought that this was a violation of a natural right under the penumbra of some enumerated right. So what you've got is a politicized opinion wrested into being a constitutional right to satisfy some influential lobby, and being overturned about half a century later - pretty much the same as Plessy v Ferguson.
    Your private school argument is BS - there were damn few free public schools in 1787 America. No one would have needed a penumbra to figure on that being a natural right. Let's go with something a little more on topic. Is polygamy a natural right? If not, why not? If 3 people and a horse want to get married as part of their religion, how can any state law prevent that? How about Sacred Prostitution?
    You have at various times on this site advocated that laws should be arranged such that certain occupations employ an equal number of women as men, and that men should be legally discriminated against to achieve this outcome. Can you please provide your informed opinion as a legal retard as to how this is compatible with the 14th Amendment equal protection clause? Or feel free to STFU.

    Replies: @Rosie

    You have at various times on this site advocated that laws should be arranged such that certain occupations employ an equal number of women as men, and that men should be legally discriminated against to achieve this outcome.

    You’re a liar. I have literally never, ever made such an argument on this site or anywhere else. Produce an example or apologize, a\$\$hole.

    there were damn few free public schools in 1787 America.

    So what? That’s no longer the case. How does it follow that the state may not mandate public school attendance now in the absence of an implied Constitutional right to privacy? There is no “natural right” argument in Constitutional law. A statute either violates an express or implied Constitutional guarantee or it does not.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska

    The legal theory that has been used to infer a right to direct the education of one’s children has now been called into serious question. That you think it is a “natural right” isn’t going to do blue-state homeschoolers any good. Meanwhile, shitlibs can just drive to another state to get their abortions.

    Indeed, now that parents’ rights have been seriously undermined, the “natural rights” argument can be used for all sorts of mischief. What happens when your son comes home and says he’s really a girl and wants to transition? You say no, then CPS comes and takes him because you have failed to honor his human rights. I don’t know why you think the government won’t use its new powers against the people it hates. I guess, like Alec, you still think this is your country.

    • Agree: kahein
    • Replies: @kahein
    @Rosie

    the whole "natural right" pseudo-philosophy in modern reactionary thought stems from the notion that the liberal order is false and merely a kind of projective screen or hollow shell -- behind which other, more legitimate forms of orders vie for dominance

    there's certainly some truth here -- but even more irony, that the supposed ephors of this wholly positivistic, normative, liberal constitutional order itself are now the ones dismantling and draining it from within

    , @Dmon
    @Rosie

    You're seriously going to use parent's rights as an argument to uphold Casey? The decision that declared that the father has no rights at all regarding the mother's decision on whether or not to have an abortion? And you're lamenting the loss of the right to privacy when the federal government can force you to show a "vaccine passport" to get on a fucking bus?
    Bottom line - the constitution vanished many years ago, certainly by the time of Wickard v Filburn. The decision overturning Roe and Casey is a tiny, probably meaningless delaying action, like the Army of Northern Virginia blowing up the Tredegar Iron Works while evacuating Richmond, or the election of Trump. It is basically a fuck you to TPTB, and will force them to just spend a little extra time and money to get to where they were going anyway. But, at least it's a small reminder of what the constitution was intended to be - a rulebook governing the interactions of States joined together in a federal union for purposes such as mutual defense and sound currency. Ultimately, a country is only as good as its' people, and ultimately, the 2A is the only one that matters.
    With regard to your first request, you are correct - you have never argued that laws should force companies to discriminate in favor of women. You have argued that they should be coerced to do so "voluntarily" (like "voluntary" vaccine mandates), so that the object can be achieved with plausible deniability, which makes you not an anti-constitutionalist but rather a fascist.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Curle
    @Rosie

    “The legal theory that has been used to infer a right to direct the education of one’s children has now been called into serious question.”

    Homeschooling may be in jeopardy in some states for the reasons you cite. That concern doesn’t legitimize opportunistic interpretations of the constitution and in particular opportunistic interpretations that favor federal over state power or that expand federal power vis-vis the states.

    The great and essential structural backbone of the constitution is its federal nature as represented by states rights doctrine. This was whittled away by activist courts and it is a great and glorious thing to see it coming back to life. Far better that states operate as centers for people sharing common values that they can vigorously exercise without federal interference than that some marginalized communities receive occasional handouts everywhere from the federal government but vigorous empowerment nowhere because of rule by national coalitions.

    Replies: @Rosie

  325. @Chebyshev
    @Nico

    The very religious subset of whites with high birth rates will be unaffected, because they don't get abortions. Very rich whites will be unaffected, because they can fly to states with legal abortion. But very poor whites in red and purple states will have more kids because of this ruling. It may also mean more mulattoes.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The very religious subset of whites with high birth rates will be unaffected

    As I have explained elsewhere, if this ruling winds up undermining the right to homeschool, it will reduce birthrates among religious, conservative Whites. They’re not going to want to send their kids to public school, and if they have to send them to private religious schools, they’ll pay by the child, and Mom will probably have to go back to work to pay the tuition. No way would I have been able to afford my 6 without homeschooling.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Rosie


    As I have explained elsewhere, if this ruling winds up undermining the right to homeschool [e.a.]
     
    Rosie, I’ve just checked your recent comments history on this FUDge factor concern. I don’t see any likely way this could occur in the United States.

    Are there current developments on the homeschool front I’m missing?

    Replies: @Rosie

  326. @Hallie Scott Kline
    I confess to an appalling ignorance about legal matters. Please help me understand how far this court may go.

    Can it (or can states) criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion? Helping a friend to do so? Procuring drugs that result in abortion (receiving them by mail)?

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.

    Can they take away the right to marry someone of a different race?

    How are these and other rights different than (what was) a Federal right to abortion? Issues like these are never left to states to decide.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Hibernian

    Can the Supreme Court take away women’s right to vote? This wasn’t part of the original Bill of Rights.

    Women’s suffrage was added to the Constitution, explicitly, by Amendment, right after WW1. The Bill of Rights is the name for the first 10 Amendments. So the rights in the Bill of Rights and women’s suffrage are on the sme plane and equally legitimate.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
  327. @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    So is a fertilized apple seed the same as an apple tree? An egg the same thing as a chicken? Without getting all metaphysical, there is a big difference between a 1 day old embryo that you can only see with a microscope and a full grown baby.

    Like many things in law there is a line drawing issue. Philosophers and religious zealots are not good at line drawing but lawmakers who live in the real world do this all the time. How fast is "too fast"? How can it be that 70 mph is not "too fast" but 71 is? Because you gotta draw lines somewhere in order to live in the real world.

    1 day is too soon (for most sane people - as I mentioned before this would make the Pill illegal) and after 24 weeks is too late. A sane line is somewhere in 12 to 15 week range where the woman should know that she is pregnant and is still able to abort by chemical means (at least up to 11 weeks) and not have to undergo gruesome procedures where the doctors basically have to deliver and kill the fetus. At 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a small kiwi fruit and weighs around 1/2 ounce. This is not quite the same thing as a baby. And indeed this is where most civilized countries draw the line.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @PhysicistDave, @Dumbo, @Twinkie

    Blabablah. There is no “good limit”. Once it’s an embryo, it’s already a life. Saying “2 weeks”, “15 weeks”, whatever, it’s window-dressing. Once there’s an embryo, it’s life.

    I guess, for Jack D, a good Russian is a dead Russian, and a good baby is a dead baby.

    Don’t be a fool. If you want to be pro-abortion, that’s fine, but don’t come with sophistry or lies. It means killing an already existing life.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dumbo

    So the "morning after" pill is out too? Once the sperm meets the egg you're stuck for the full 9 months? What if the woman has a miscarriage? Should we charge her with murder or child abuse?

    As I said before, there is no bright line between day 1 and day 270 just as there is no bright line between "speeding" and "not speeding" but people who are not religious fundamentalists draw practical lines all the time.

    Ideally we would live in a world without killing. Not only would we not kill embryos, we wouldn't kill animals. Maybe we wouldn't even kill plants. We would just drink nutrient glop made from petroleum or something. But we don't live in the ideal world of absolutes. In the real world sometimes you have to make moral compromises.

    I have nothing against Russians, but I do have something against people who invade sovereign democratic countries. So yes, if any Russian invader dies while attacking another country then he had it coming. He should have stayed home and then he would still be alive.

    OTOH, the Russian Army seems to think that a good Ukrainian is a dead Ukrainian - they are certainly willing to indiscriminately kill Ukrainian civilians. I find it hard to understand why you want to save the lives of embryos but not that of Ukrainian children. Could it be that the kids are fascists and therefore deserve to die? What about fascist embryos?

  328. @anonymous
    Numerous tweets from deranged lefties LITERALLY talking about killing, murdering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, especially given Thomas' separate opinion recommending to revisit gay marriage etc decisions as well

    Screenshots of a number of those troubling tweets, collected in the image below

    But given the 'who' and the 'whom', the feds maybe aren't rushing out to round up lefties, regardless

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1656108628206.jpg

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker, @Corvinus, @AndrewR

    SCOTUS has had a lot of rulings over the years that have made many people feel homicidal. I wouldn’t bet on this one kicking off a civil war, but admittedly I can’t recall this much anger at the Supreme Court in my lifetime.

  329. @Mike Tre
    @Hibernian

    Pretty sure those two legged critters were likely to be black than white.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    At the time and in the place she mentioned (late ’50s early 60s Birmingham AL) I think it was the other way around.

  330. @Reg Cæsar
    @The Real World


    I spoke of conception and you launch to when a fetus is viable outside the womb! Good grief, that is about 5 to 6 months LATER.
     
    Nevertheless, the fetus is perfectly viable within the womb. The individuals responsible for its existence had better have a good excuse for removing it.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @The Real World

    Linear dialogue, Reg, stay on a linear dialogue, please.

    Nobody know when conception occurs so it is a ridiculous line in the sand. Then, Mr Dandy Wingnut flings to comparing it to viability outside the womb as if it’s the same thing. (Frankly, he gets so strung-out about this, I think he may be speaking from a guilty conscience. It’s too weird, otherwise.)

    Retards abound on this issue and almost entirely because they are ignorant of basic reproductive FACTS and because they want to impose their will on others.

    Both of those suck…but, they don’t care. It’s all about them – too many narcissists.

  331. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The liberal cities and states have already indicated that they are going to try their best to resist the ruling and be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. They will repeal their Sullivan Law or equivalent and enact something that (arguably, if you really stretch it) supposedly complies with Bruen but in fact is just as restrictive as their Sullivan Law. Then people will take them to court over that and they will lose, and they will enact something else that is a equal but different stretch, etc. Every step along the way will take years and in the meantime they won't be issuing permits.

    Meanwhile the bureaucracy, which is always slow, is going to be even slower. They will sit on your application and then when you press them they will say that your application is incomplete and when you send in the missing documents they will say that they "lost them", etc.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @John Johnson, @Hibernian

    At some point there may be a Federal Writ of Mandamus.