Jump to content

US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

She would have got a longer sentence but it was reduced due to all her hard work with children

HA! 

Love it. 

This is one of the (many) reasons I'm a bad liberal. I say fry the bitch. Some things are unforgivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

She would have got a longer sentence but it was reduced due to all her hard work with children

I read that she is 60 years old, if she serves her full time, she'll be 80.  Good, she could die there.   boo hoo

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

How perfect is it that Trump’s first objection is about the size of his crowd?

I noticed that, but now that you mention it.....:lmao:

 

A perspective on why he so badly wanted to go to the Capitol.  Scary, scary shit.  

 

Edited by LongRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

HA! 

Love it. 

This is one of the (many) reasons I'm a bad liberal. I say fry the bitch. Some things are unforgivable.

While true, my understanding is she didn't rat anyone out. Let her do some hard time and see if she's willing to spill the beans on some folks. I think it's fair to assume she's got a lot of dirt on some very rich and powerful people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

While true, my understanding is she didn't rat anyone out. Let her do some hard time and see if she's willing to spill the beans on some folks. I think it's fair to assume she's got a lot of dirt on some very rich and powerful people. 

Yo if there's one thing I'm getting for going back to the middle ages it better be executions. If you're gonna end a woman's life for doing what she wills with her own body at least have the good grace to crucify her at halftime and let the mob taste the consequences of their sadistic rules. 

(I'm very drunk. Fuck everything )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Yo if there's one thing I'm getting for going back to the middle ages it better be executions. If you're gonna end a woman's life for doing what she wills with her own body at least have the good grace to crucify her at halftime and let the mob taste the consequences of their sadistic rules. 

(I'm very drunk. Fuck everything )

I mean if we're going down this road I'm still on team feed them to sharks pirate style or throw them into a volcano. Be bold, crucifixions are so yesterday's news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

throw them into a volcano

Can’t do that, only virgins get thrown into volcanoes. duh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LongRider said:

This what has Brett's undies in a twist.  One of many, no doubt.   scroll down

 

 

Honestly, is there anything Trumpier than an ‘I hardly know person x’ statement immediately followed by a comprehensive list of that persons negative characteristics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, S John said:

Honestly, is there anything Trumpier than an ‘I hardly know person x’ statement immediately followed by a comprehensive list of that persons negative characteristics.

 

I agree, the problem I see is even these rants are basically reruns, they seem to work well to rile up his followers who then troll, dox and endanger the subject of these rants.  
Really pathetic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Can’t do that, only virgins get thrown into volcanoes. duh

Eh, dunk their head in the water, call 'em reborn and get on with the show. Maybe paint them up like in Apocalypto afterwards before the ceremony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I believe you are incorrect.  The 9th Amendment expressly states that the lack of an enumerated in the Constitution right in no way invalidates other un enumerated rights under the US Constitution.  Therefore, had such a Statute stated that such a right exists it would have force and effect.

The question would change to whether the US Congress has the power to grant such a right.

Which, given that would be decided by the SC would have had to be resolved in the same case and would have presumably been thrown out when the SC overturned Roe vs Wade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

Yo if there's one thing I'm getting for going back to the middle ages it better be executions. If you're gonna end a woman's life for doing what she wills with her own body at least have the good grace to crucify her at halftime and let the mob taste the consequences of their sadistic rules. 

(I'm very drunk. Fuck everything )

You think of stoning, not cruzifixion.

Crucifixion wasn't use as punishment for fornication tho. And it would take too long to be good spectacle (unless you make it a 3-4 holiday, likesay Easter). Otherwise watching it, is probably as entertaining as Baseball. Cuzification is a more extreme punishment and is reserved only for the worst elements of society likesay Heidi. In a lesser form it's been rendered onto the American public to atone for the the last Gulf war. Yes, Ted is your collective punishment.

Again stoning is the spectator thing, and is also more interactive with the audience taking part in the show. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ants said:

Which, given that would be decided by the SC would have had to be resolved in the same case and would have presumably been thrown out when the SC overturned Roe vs Wade. 

You seem to be under the belief that Congress can only has the authority to legislate on matters directly relating to their enumerated powers or those that have been deemed "rights" by SCOTUS.  This is..not at all true, and certainly has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision.  Indeed, the central argument of Kavanaugh's concurrence, which represents the deciding vote on overturning Roe, makes this explicit:

Quote

On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address.

Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

You seem to be under the belief that Congress can only has the authority to legislate on matters directly relating to their enumerated powers or those that have been deemed "rights" by SCOTUS.  This is..not at all true, and certainly has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision.  Indeed, the central argument of Kavanaugh's concurrence, which represents the deciding vote on overturning Roe, makes this explicit:

I was under that impression, that the constitution sets out where Federal powers apply. Obviously with current interpretation of those clauses. Is that incorrect?

On whether a federal abortion law would have stood up on its own without Roe vs Wade, I’m not saying this case said anything one way or another. It didn’t need to. But if such a law had been in effect the decision would have had to deal with it (as the federal law would contradict the new state laws) and I feel this court would have found against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LongRider said:

This what has Brett's undies in a twist.  One of many, no doubt.   scroll down

 

 

Possibly the least credible aspect of this denial is the idea that he hardly knows who Hutchinson is. You're telling me there was an attractive 23 year old woman working metres from Trump's office and he wasn't hanging around her constantly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LongRider said:

I read that she is 60 years old, if she serves her full time, she'll be 80.  Good, she could die there.   boo hoo

I noticed that, but now that you mention it.....:lmao:

 

A perspective on why he so badly wanted to go to the Capitol.  Scary, scary shit.  

 

If her lawyer talks her into trying to barter off years by naming names, she’ll be lucky to reach 61

Edited by Derfel Cadarn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...