Off Topic · OT - Roe V Wade overturned (page 13)

wargames wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542509020891598848?s=21

Click here to view the Tweet

It’s not a Radical Conservative court because the founding fathers wanted all of us to die due to global warming in anticipation of the Rapture…..

It’s explicitly says “you either get raptured or you die from fires and smoke due to global warming” in the constitution.

Jokes aside the SC is off the rails.

They set the country back 100 years in a week.

Jmpasq wrote:

wargames wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542509020891598848?s=21

Click here to view the Tweet

It’s not a Radical Conservative court because the founding fathers wanted all of us to die due to global warming in anticipation of the Rapture…..

It’s explicitly says “you either get raptured or you die from fires and smoke due to global warming” in the constitution.

Jokes aside the SC is off the rails.

They set the country back 100 years in a week.

We're in great hands with this SCOTUS. No worries for anyone here at all....https://www.oxygenlevels.org/

https://www.co2levels.org/

Jmpasq wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:
Joe Biden could have fixed all this himself. He is the current President. He has majorities in both the House and the Senate. Now Biden would have to convince Joe Manchin to kill the filibuster but it's not the GOP's fault if Biden can't do that. Or Biden could have done really well while President so that he could pick up more Senate seats to kill the filibuster while working around Manchin's holdout. Or he could try to cut a deal with some Republicans over abortion.

That majority in the Senate is in name only. Manchin and Sinema are not Democrats. Making it a federal law with that type of slim majority would just have it overturned the next time the Republicans are in power. Unfortunately the only way to move forward is to protect the states autonomy on all issues. Let the people in those states decide. Republicans want to control woman. If woman don't like it they should leave the state. It sucks but the only other solution is to end the USA

Does Your Member Of Congress Vote With Or Against Biden?

An updating tally of how often every member of the House and the Senate votes with or against the president.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bid...

Mar. 9, 2022, at 9:10 AM

How often Sinema votes in line with Biden’s position 97.7%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bid...

Mar. 9, 2022, at 9:10 AM

How often Manchin votes in line with Biden’s position 95.5%

*********

Jmpasq,
You are a good poster. You have a very rational view of how the Knicks operate and I've always appreciated that. You're always very honest about your positions on what the Knicks are doing.

Sinema and Manchin are most definitely Democrats. Look at their voting record with Biden. What is complicated is both want to win reelection first and foremost ( That's all politicians, not just these two) and supporting Build Back Better and ending the filibuster causes problems for them. Manchin knows West Virginia is about coal production. He's not looking to disrupt that in his state that is mostly red. Sinema is in a legitimate battleground area, especially with the Southern Border issues. Also she gets a lot of money from Big Pharma.

Joe Biden wants their votes, he has to cut a deal with them. Make a deal better than the one they are getting elsewhere.

If you say, that's difficult, then I say that's the job he signed up for and that's the deal here.

You can't say abortion rights are a legislative priority and then not actually make it a legislative priority. If Biden can't cut a deal with members of his own Party, that's not on Trump and that's not on the GOP. That's an in-house problem.

When you are President, the American people don't give a fuck about your excuses. You said you would do something, then do it. Find a way to make it happen. Cut a deal. Negotiate. Leverage someone.

Do you know how to get an abortion bill passed into federal law that sticks?

1) Don't have it end up like Roe, where it doesn't hold up to actual legal scrutiny. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did so much for women's rights, said Roe v Wade was badly ruled and constructed. Nearly all Democratic Senators voting twice in the past two years trying to wipe out all existing state laws regarding abortion is totally fucking extreme and impractical to get passed.

2) Pick something more moderate than the Womens Health Protection Act I listed several replies earlier. Offer something far less extreme but still does something to help women's rights and abortion rights. Lots of Republicans and Moderates are not completely anti-abortion, they just don't want completely unlimited abortions. Find some kind of compromise.

3) Actually cease to pander to the radical Progressives in the Party and push legislation that fits more to what the majority of Americans actually say they support. Most Americans don't support lack of parental notification. Most don't support Sex Selective abortions. Most don't want tax payer dollars to fund abortions. Most don't want abortions that could include "up to the moment of birth".

4) Win lots of elections to get the majorities you need. But that's not going to happen if you keep fucking up the economy by printing money non stop. Inflation is hurting Americans. They see the grocery store and the gas pump and they are upset. You don't win elections like that. And while many people care about abortion issues, they also care about the children they have right here today they want to see in good schools, have future good jobs, live on safe streets and always have food on the table. Democrats need to look at "kitchen table" issues and fix those first before they can ask for these other social issues. I'm not saying social issues are not important, I am saying no one is going to listen to you while they are starving.

I keep hearing Republicans are fucked up and it's all their fault.

So, no, it's not all their fault.

Democrats need to start fixing shit in-house as well. Actually, they need to do it to start. No one wants to hear their excuses. They had 50 fucking years to figure this out.

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

wargames wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542509020891598848?s=21

Click here to view the Tweet

It’s not a Radical Conservative court because the founding fathers wanted all of us to die due to global warming in anticipation of the Rapture…..

It’s explicitly says “you either get raptured or you die from fires and smoke due to global warming” in the constitution.

Jokes aside the SC is off the rails.

They set the country back 100 years in a week.

We're in great hands with this SCOTUS. No worries for anyone here at all....https://www.oxygenlevels.org/

https://www.co2levels.org/

TripleThreat wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:
Joe Biden could have fixed all this himself. He is the current President. He has majorities in both the House and the Senate. Now Biden would have to convince Joe Manchin to kill the filibuster but it's not the GOP's fault if Biden can't do that. Or Biden could have done really well while President so that he could pick up more Senate seats to kill the filibuster while working around Manchin's holdout. Or he could try to cut a deal with some Republicans over abortion.

That majority in the Senate is in name only. Manchin and Sinema are not Democrats. Making it a federal law with that type of slim majority would just have it overturned the next time the Republicans are in power. Unfortunately the only way to move forward is to protect the states autonomy on all issues. Let the people in those states decide. Republicans want to control woman. If woman don't like it they should leave the state. It sucks but the only other solution is to end the USA

Does Your Member Of Congress Vote With Or Against Biden?

An updating tally of how often every member of the House and the Senate votes with or against the president.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bid...

Mar. 9, 2022, at 9:10 AM

How often Sinema votes in line with Biden’s position 97.7%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bid...

Mar. 9, 2022, at 9:10 AM

How often Manchin votes in line with Biden’s position 95.5%

*********

Jmpasq,
You are a good poster. You have a very rational view of how the Knicks operate and I've always appreciated that. You're always very honest about your positions on what the Knicks are doing.

Sinema and Manchin are most definitely Democrats. Look at their voting record with Biden. What is complicated is both want to win reelection first and foremost ( That's all politicians, not just these two) and supporting Build Back Better and ending the filibuster causes problems for them. Manchin knows West Virginia is about coal production. He's not looking to disrupt that in his state that is mostly red. Sinema is in a legitimate battleground area, especially with the Southern Border issues. Also she gets a lot of money from Big Pharma.

Joe Biden wants their votes, he has to cut a deal with them. Make a deal better than the one they are getting elsewhere.

If you say, that's difficult, then I say that's the job he signed up for and that's the deal here.

You can't say abortion rights are a legislative priority and then not actually make it a legislative priority. If Biden can't cut a deal with members of his own Party, that's not on Trump and that's not on the GOP. That's an in-house problem.

When you are President, the American people don't give a fuck about your excuses. You said you would do something, then do it. Find a way to make it happen. Cut a deal. Negotiate. Leverage someone.

Do you know how to get an abortion bill passed into federal law that sticks?

1) Don't have it end up like Roe, where it doesn't hold up to actual legal scrutiny. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did so much for women's rights, said Roe v Wade was badly ruled and constructed. Nearly all Democratic Senators voting twice in the past two years trying to wipe out all existing state laws regarding abortion is totally fucking extreme and impractical to get passed.

2) Pick something more moderate than the Womens Health Protection Act I listed several replies earlier. Offer something far less extreme but still does something to help women's rights and abortion rights. Lots of Republicans and Moderates are not completely anti-abortion, they just don't want completely unlimited abortions. Find some kind of compromise.

3) Actually cease to pander to the radical Progressives in the Party and push legislation that fits more to what the majority of Americans actually say they support. Most Americans don't support lack of parental notification. Most don't support Sex Selective abortions. Most don't want tax payer dollars to fund abortions. Most don't want abortions that could include "up to the moment of birth".

4) Win lots of elections to get the majorities you need. But that's not going to happen if you keep fucking up the economy by printing money non stop. Inflation is hurting Americans. They see the grocery store and the gas pump and they are upset. You don't win elections like that. And while many people care about abortion issues, they also care about the children they have right here today they want to see in good schools, have future good jobs, live on safe streets and always have food on the table. Democrats need to look at "kitchen table" issues and fix those first before they can ask for these other social issues. I'm not saying social issues are not important, I am saying no one is going to listen to you while they are starving.

I keep hearing Republicans are fucked up and it's all their fault.

So, no, it's not all their fault.

Democrats need to start fixing shit in-house as well. Actually, they need to do it to start. No one wants to hear their excuses. They had 50 fucking years to figure this out.

martin wrote:Local man who witnessed an arsonist walk into basement of house in neighborhood and light fire to basement blames homeowner as house burns to the ground and lets them know they fucked themselves because even though they had fire alarms and sprinklers in basement they should have also made entire lower level of home completely flammable proof thus guaranteeing safety.

Fire moving to entire neighborhood and blame is being passed from neighbor to neighbor for also not building their homes out of non flammable materials.

Area man perplexed and agrees to poll more arsonists and neighbors.

Jesus man

TripleThreat wrote:I keep hearing Republicans are fucked up and it's all their fault.

So, no, it's not all their fault.

Democrats need to start fixing shit in-house as well. Actually, they need to do it to start. No one wants to hear their excuses. They had 50 fucking years to figure this out.

Local area man moves from blaming home owner to blaming firefighters for not putting out the fires quickly enough.

Jmpasq wrote:

wargames wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542509020891598848?s=21

Click here to view the Tweet

It’s not a Radical Conservative court because the founding fathers wanted all of us to die due to global warming in anticipation of the Rapture…..

It’s explicitly says “you either get raptured or you die from fires and smoke due to global warming” in the constitution.

Jokes aside the SC is off the rails.

They set the country back 100 years in a week.

A pregnant woman in Ohio who has cancer can’t undergo chemotherapy until after she has an abortion. Problem is Ohio now has an abortion ban with no exceptions

Oh my God

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1543263900661063684?s=20&t=Tw3cOg50ggU2nYiYj9fr9g

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/HeidiReports/status/1543231138201845766?s=20&t=Tw3cOg50ggU2nYiYj9fr9g

Click here to view the Tweet

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought. Ain't talking about crooked Pastors, Reverands, Priests, Teacher Or Master too.
Change is one lifes is real & can be important

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

<< However, government and religion need to be kept separate ..
>>
Wargames I couldn't agree with you more! Excellent & noted.

The states and USA has messed Religion into Politics for MOST POWER, doesn't work. A mess parties are all about power.
If the states each decided as in each state 'abortion' or wade/roe exception gives rights in that state, well that's was decided per state as Ok.

DJMUSIC wrote:

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

<< However, government and religion need to be kept separate ..
>>
Wargames I couldn't agree with you more! Excellent & noted.

The states and USA has messed Religion into Politics for MOST POWER, doesn't work. A mess parties are all about power.
If the states each decided as in each state 'abortion' or wade/roe exception gives rights in that state, well that's was decided per state as Ok.

How do you feel about the Miles Bridges domestic assault story?

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

<< However, government and religion need to be kept separate ..
>>
Wargames I couldn't agree with you more! Excellent & noted.

The states and USA has messed Religion into Politics for MOST POWER, doesn't work. A mess parties are all about power.
If the states each decided as in each state 'abortion' or wade/roe exception gives rights in that state, well that's was decided per state as Ok.

How do you feel about the Miles Bridges domestic assault story?

Posted this on other Thread "Bridges Interest by NBA teams"

Some Troubling info:

Hornets’ Miles Bridges Throws, Hits Fan With Mouth Guard After Ejection vs. Hawks
NICK SELBEAPR 13, 2022

Miles Bridges Fined $50,000 After Throwing Mouthpiece into Stands vs. Hawks
WILTON JACKSONAPR 14, 2022

Report: Michigan State basketball star Miles Bridges' mom linked to FBI probe
Chris Solari
Detroit Free Press
Feb. 23 2018
2018/02/23

Miles Bridges' wife posts photos of alleged assault by Charlotte Hornets star
https://4state.news/miles-bridges-wife-p...

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

<< However, government and religion need to be kept separate ..
>>
Wargames I couldn't agree with you more! Excellent & noted.

The states and USA has messed Religion into Politics for MOST POWER, doesn't work. A mess parties are all about power.
If the states each decided as in each state 'abortion' or wade/roe exception gives rights in that state, well that's was decided per state as Ok.

How do you feel about the Miles Bridges domestic assault story?

Will pray for Bridges TOO good a NBA player.
However we see stories of Stars having everything NOW this?

Bridges will need to fix his NON pro sports job issue which is his Life!

I am Huge Steeler fan, see the Antonio Brown saga sad story, even with a TB Bucs NFL Title Trophy/Champs!
A.Brown GOT Stunk again, sad ... flu**ck it up!

NO NFL team need to chance A.B, I was HUGE AB fan
..wish his health wellness since NFL isnt the important thing its fixing AB's life, NFL Life OVER!

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/nickwestes/status/1542236492092825601?s=21&t=0cHSdNvJANMLtk-SKK-Z2g

Click here to view the Tweet

And they took over Native American sovereignty in their reservations and gave that power too… the states! Which is really weird because the federal government gave them their sovereignty but you know interpretation by radical conservatives will skip that when needed. This is the absolute opposite of what the 10th amendment stands for too… so once again we see this activist court overstepping their place to make policy from the bench.

DJMUSIC wrote:

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

wargames wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

Know what you mean about prayers,
However nearly everyone Or People of world (free choice) HAS issue
with Praying. Directly the Topic issue isn't in regards to prayers which is a Free choice agreed.

Just Interesting how "pray or prayers" are mentioned in any discussion
and 1/2 the hemisphere called USA acts Like Pr_ __ers is a bad word OR thing.
To each his own. Prayers are a very personal thing. Just a Thought

This is not an attack on Christianity or prayers.

However, government and religion need to be kept separate because every time they haven’t you have situations where intolerance, hate, and strife occur. America is a country where we don’t all worship the same God or any God. We also have the right to worship our God in peace using all the private resources we want.

This run of decisions by this court isn’t about legal precedent but an extension of the cultural wars impeding on our personal rights.

It’s a radical conservative court forcing its myopic views of America on the rest of us.

<< However, government and religion need to be kept separate ..
>>
Wargames I couldn't agree with you more! Excellent & noted.

The states and USA has messed Religion into Politics for MOST POWER, doesn't work. A mess parties are all about power.
If the states each decided as in each state 'abortion' or wade/roe exception gives rights in that state, well that's was decided per state as Ok.

How do you feel about the Miles Bridges domestic assault story?

Will pray for Bridges TOO good a NBA player.
However we see stories of Stars having everything NOW this?

Bridges will need to fix his NON pro sports job issue which is his Life!

I am Huge Steeler fan, see the Antonio Brown saga sad story, even with a TB Bucs NFL Title Trophy/Champs!
A.Brown GOT Stunk again, sad ... flu**ck it up!

NO NFL team need to chance A.B, I was HUGE AB fan
..wish his health wellness since NFL isnt the important thing its fixing AB's life, NFL Life OVER!

…. I am literally trying to find some middle ground here and your jumping around the issue. Is Domestic abuse bad? Yes or no. if Miles is convicted for domestic abuse do you think he should have the book thrown at him?

Can we all agree a domestic abuser should be punished significantly, or is this also a debatable issue?

homeskillitprigioni wrote:
People like you do this all the time. It's not supporting abortion, it's supporting choice. I doubt the people you're saying that to has ever gone up to someone and tried to convince them to get an abortion.

There's an agenda of control that people like yourself have, especially when it comes to pushing views indoctrined by religion. For example, the Conservative Christian side will push to ban gay marriage even though those in favor aren't forcing them to be gay or attend a gay wedding. But the Christians want to ban it because they want to impose their views beliefs on other people.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/w...

Why Didn’t Democrats Codify Roe When They Had the Chance?

Some reporters and pundits have said that Democrats in Congress simply lacked the votes to ever enshrine in federal statute a right to abortion. But a closer look at the last two unified Democratic governments — the first under the Clinton presidency in 1993 and 1994 and the second under the Obama presidency in 2009 and 2010 — shows there very likely were congressional majorities in support of a federal right to abortion. There just weren’t enough votes to enshrine a right as expansive as the one that activists wanted...After Democrats swept to power in 1992, the same year that the Supreme Court upheld Roe by a 5–4 vote in its Casey decision, there was a concerted effort in Congress to codify Roe by passing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)....“In the weeks following Bill Clinton’s election, abortion rights groups said they were confident that a bill to codify a woman’s right to an abortion would become law within the first few months of the 103rd Congress,” Congressional Quarterly reported in May 1993....

.....[FOCA] would have the effect of overturning existing state laws that require 24-hour waiting periods and would nullify some parental notice and consent laws for minors. Many House members and senators want to allow precisely those types of restrictions on abortion. But abortion rights groups and their allies in Congress are adamantly opposed to such limits....FOCA’s legislative text made plain that no state could restrict abortion “at any time” in pregnancy so long as the procedure was needed to protect the “health” of the mother. The term “health” was left undefined, and an open amendment process could have narrowed its meaning, so that the bill would protect only those with serious physical — as opposed to psychological — health issues....

....The Freedom of Choice Act thus never came up for a vote before the full House or Senate during the first two years of Clinton’s presidency, when Democrats had complete control of the government....On the campaign trail in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that signing FOCA into law would be the “first thing” he’d do as president. But though he swept to power with a 60-seat Senate majority and a 256-seat House majority, there was no legislative movement on FOCA during the first two years of Obama’s presidency.....Even if Pryor, Nelson, and Casey had defected on an abortion vote, there were three Republican senators who supported Roe: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Their votes would have gotten some federal abortion bill the 60 votes it needed to overcome a Senate filibuster......House Democrats were divided over the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion during that Congress. The House and Senate passed a bill allowing Medicaid funding of elective abortions in Washington, D.C., but Reid and Pelosi needed to compromise with a small group of pro-life Democrats to secure final passage of the Affordable Care Act....But the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion is not a great proxy for support of Roe. There were many Democrats back then, including Joe Biden, who opposed taxpayer funding but supported Roe, just as Joe Manchin does today. There were at least 20 pro-choice House Democrats who voted for an amendment limiting taxpayer funding, and at least three House Republicans who supported Roe .....

......If Pelosi had the muscle to get Obamacare through the House, why didn’t she try to ram through a bill protecting Roe? Three factors were at play. First, there were six sitting Supreme Court justices who supported Roe. Second, it had taken significant political capital to pass Obamacare, and a vote on FOCA would have been politically painful. Third, the same sorts of divisions that had killed FOCA in 1993 were still at play in Congress in 2009 — there was likely majority support for some right to abortion, just not for one as broad as FOCA’s......In the years since....The successor to FOCA, the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), was just as radical on the issue of late-term abortion as FOCA and managed to go several steps beyond FOCA (for example, the WHPA supersedes conscience laws and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Pelosi didn’t allow amendments to be made to the bill, and only one House Democrat (Henry Cuellar of Texas) ended up voting against it....Activists who insisted on holding out for a more extreme bill are partly responsible for the fact that there is no federal law establishing a right to abortion.....

Do you want to talk about an "agenda of control"?

Both during the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration and even into the Biden Administration, the message was the same - The majority of Americans don't support the WHPA and FOCA because it's too extreme. You can't involved tax dollars and you can't remove parental consent and you can't have abortions up to the moment of birth and get anything passed.

So this problem even extends all the way back to Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party kept fucking around. They didn't get on the ball on this. This wouldn't be a controversy like it is today if there was a real commitment and action in line with their words ( and broken promises) to voters.

For the liberals here, the elected officials you voted for to put into office fucked it up for you. Plain and simple.

Here's what happened. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden wanted those votes and wanted that fund raising from the extremist side of the Democratic Party. They wanted the "wedge issue" of saying what you are saying now - That the GOP doesn't want women to have choice.

But when the power to make the choice into federal law came up? Nah, just fuck it. I like the kind of fund raising I get because it energizes my donor base instead.

Did the GOP fuck you? More appropriate is saying you got double teamed. Finger cuffs and all that.

TripleThreat wrote:

homeskillitprigioni wrote:
People like you do this all the time. It's not supporting abortion, it's supporting choice. I doubt the people you're saying that to has ever gone up to someone and tried to convince them to get an abortion.

There's an agenda of control that people like yourself have, especially when it comes to pushing views indoctrined by religion. For example, the Conservative Christian side will push to ban gay marriage even though those in favor aren't forcing them to be gay or attend a gay wedding. But the Christians want to ban it because they want to impose their views beliefs on other people.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/w...

Why Didn’t Democrats Codify Roe When They Had the Chance?

Some reporters and pundits have said that Democrats in Congress simply lacked the votes to ever enshrine in federal statute a right to abortion. But a closer look at the last two unified Democratic governments — the first under the Clinton presidency in 1993 and 1994 and the second under the Obama presidency in 2009 and 2010 — shows there very likely were congressional majorities in support of a federal right to abortion. There just weren’t enough votes to enshrine a right as expansive as the one that activists wanted...After Democrats swept to power in 1992, the same year that the Supreme Court upheld Roe by a 5–4 vote in its Casey decision, there was a concerted effort in Congress to codify Roe by passing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)....“In the weeks following Bill Clinton’s election, abortion rights groups said they were confident that a bill to codify a woman’s right to an abortion would become law within the first few months of the 103rd Congress,” Congressional Quarterly reported in May 1993....

.....[FOCA] would have the effect of overturning existing state laws that require 24-hour waiting periods and would nullify some parental notice and consent laws for minors. Many House members and senators want to allow precisely those types of restrictions on abortion. But abortion rights groups and their allies in Congress are adamantly opposed to such limits....FOCA’s legislative text made plain that no state could restrict abortion “at any time” in pregnancy so long as the procedure was needed to protect the “health” of the mother. The term “health” was left undefined, and an open amendment process could have narrowed its meaning, so that the bill would protect only those with serious physical — as opposed to psychological — health issues....

....The Freedom of Choice Act thus never came up for a vote before the full House or Senate during the first two years of Clinton’s presidency, when Democrats had complete control of the government....On the campaign trail in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that signing FOCA into law would be the “first thing” he’d do as president. But though he swept to power with a 60-seat Senate majority and a 256-seat House majority, there was no legislative movement on FOCA during the first two years of Obama’s presidency.....Even if Pryor, Nelson, and Casey had defected on an abortion vote, there were three Republican senators who supported Roe: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Their votes would have gotten some federal abortion bill the 60 votes it needed to overcome a Senate filibuster......House Democrats were divided over the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion during that Congress. The House and Senate passed a bill allowing Medicaid funding of elective abortions in Washington, D.C., but Reid and Pelosi needed to compromise with a small group of pro-life Democrats to secure final passage of the Affordable Care Act....But the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion is not a great proxy for support of Roe. There were many Democrats back then, including Joe Biden, who opposed taxpayer funding but supported Roe, just as Joe Manchin does today. There were at least 20 pro-choice House Democrats who voted for an amendment limiting taxpayer funding, and at least three House Republicans who supported Roe .....

......If Pelosi had the muscle to get Obamacare through the House, why didn’t she try to ram through a bill protecting Roe? Three factors were at play. First, there were six sitting Supreme Court justices who supported Roe. Second, it had taken significant political capital to pass Obamacare, and a vote on FOCA would have been politically painful. Third, the same sorts of divisions that had killed FOCA in 1993 were still at play in Congress in 2009 — there was likely majority support for some right to abortion, just not for one as broad as FOCA’s......In the years since....The successor to FOCA, the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), was just as radical on the issue of late-term abortion as FOCA and managed to go several steps beyond FOCA (for example, the WHPA supersedes conscience laws and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Pelosi didn’t allow amendments to be made to the bill, and only one House Democrat (Henry Cuellar of Texas) ended up voting against it....Activists who insisted on holding out for a more extreme bill are partly responsible for the fact that there is no federal law establishing a right to abortion.....

Do you want to talk about an "agenda of control"?

Both during the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration and even into the Biden Administration, the message was the same - The majority of Americans don't support the WHPA and FOCA because it's too extreme. You can't involved tax dollars and you can't remove parental consent and you can't have abortions up to the moment of birth and get anything passed.

So this problem even extends all the way back to Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party kept fucking around. They didn't get on the ball on this. This wouldn't be a controversy like it is today if there was a real commitment and action in line with their words ( and broken promises) to voters.

For the liberals here, the elected officials you voted for to put into office fucked it up for you. Plain and simple.

Here's what happened. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden wanted those votes and wanted that fund raising from the extremist side of the Democratic Party. They wanted the "wedge issue" of saying what you are saying now - That the GOP doesn't want women to have choice.

But when the power to make the choice into federal law came up? Nah, just fuck it. I like the kind of fund raising I get because it energizes my donor base instead.

Did the GOP fuck you? More appropriate is saying you got double teamed. Finger cuffs and all that.

well i do have to admit you were right about one thing. you warned that we’d be subject to repetitive banal unintelligent partisan drivel if we opened up this board to political topics

Marv wrote:well i do have to admit you were right about one thing. you warned that we’d be subject to repetitive banal unintelligent partisan drivel if we opened up this board to political topics

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/t...

Obama the abortion extremist

Obama opposed the 'Born Alive Infants Protection Act' three times....From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.” It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Under the guise of upholding abortion rights, Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact—he did....

....In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago of obfuscation and distortions.....The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal status of infants still in the womb....

About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation. But he couldn’t even bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility taking what might be only a few fragile breaths on this Earth. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.

President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will....He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban....In 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that his first act as president would be signing the Freedom of Choice Act. The act would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on abortion. This isn’t a point its supporters contest; it’s one they brag about. The National Organization for Women says it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.....”

....In May, a bi-partisan majority of the House, including 20 Democrats, voted to ban abortion for the purpose of sex selection. As the National Right to Life Committee noted, it didn’t occur to reporters to ask the White House about the president’s position on the legislation.....A White House spokeswoman said: “The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.” In other words, gender-based discrimination is OK—so long as it results in an abortion......

......The real gap is by education and religion. Sixty percent of non-religious people call themselves “pro-choice,” and fifty-eight percent of post-graduates do. The fight over abortion is likelier to resonate with these voters than with women per se. But the “war on secular post-graduates” just doesn’t have the same ring....He is as serious about discouraging abortion as he was about opposing gay marriage up until a few months ago. Which is to say laughably disingenuous. How many other things does the president want to discourage but not restrict in any fashion and to fund with federal dollars?

So Obama didn't just have the opportunity, and the majorities he needed to codify Roe into federal law. And he didn't just lie about making FOCA his first legislative priority. He also voted to make sure that if there was a botched abortion, that the medical staff in place would be legally obligated to walk away. Just leave the fetus/infant there to die a slow agonizing death.

The majority of voters polled aren't down with that shit. The majority of voters want abortions only widely accessible in the first trimester. Beyond that, they want there to be a legitimate medical reason/health care reason/safety of the mother issue in play.

Of course Obama doing all this bullshit raises the other issue - That he flip flopped on gay marriage.

One of you will start shouting that no one here is talking about gay marriage, but if we are talking about Roe being overturned, we are also talking about lots of Democrats shouting, at this very moment, that Obergefell v Hodges ( gay marriage) will be overturned too as a consequence of Roe being overturned. Obama also had an opportunity to put that into federal law with his super majority.

Obama lied to your faces, all of you liberals here, then did nothing about abortion rights. And we are going to pretend he was also, at one point, more than OK with opposing gay marriage. You want to keep talking about freedom of choice here?

And before someone starts throwing some shit on a wall, I don't have any problem with gay marriage. Personally I think all marriage is an insane idea to get financially and emotionally fucked over, no matter who sleeps in your bed at night. But I'm not going to stop anyone from doing it. I'm not going to make myself responsible for someone else's bad life decisions. And that's everyone. Straight, gay, man, woman, young, old, black, white, bisexual, panda, lemur, it's all the same to me.

What's partisan here? All of you know the GOP and the Republican Party were going to go after Roe and abortion laws. All of you. It's not like it's some surprise. It's not like the GOP tried to hide that shit either. Republicans were upfront about what they wanted and what they were going to do. This wasn't some ambush here. But what you don't like hearing is your own Party, people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and all the rest were equally fucking you over.

This could have been real damn simple. What do the majority of Americans polled actually want regarding abortion? Then offer that. Democrats should have offered that. Something reasonable and in line with how most people feel about it. That also means don't try to have botched abortions turn into a fucking horror show as some fetus/infant chokes to death on it's own blood as it's abandoned on some cold ass metal table. I'm OK with abortions, and I'm OK with gay marriage, but that's some grim shit there. That's some cold ass ruthless fallback on how things should go. But maybe you feel different about it.

See all you have left is to insult me. Go ahead, like that's ever stopped me before. People have been insulting me on this forum for a decade. And guess what? My basketball analysis is still fucking aces anyway. All I have to do is actually talk about the topic at hand and point out the hypocrisy and provide good information on the subject matter.