It’s already protected under federal law. It’s illegal to discriminate based on sex. You can’t say a man can marry a woman but a woman can’t. That’s discrimination based on sex.
I, too, am shocked that the republicans I voted into office are doing the things their party has ran on for 50 years
Republicans have been running on something forever and it happens I can't believe they did the thing I voted for
"I'm a complete and utter fucking idiot incapable of even the slightest bit of critical thought and I shouldn't ever be taken seriously"
You know you have a good position when you need to use the same argument that confederates used to justify slavery.
My governor's out here pitching a brown baby starvation plan and we can't even get a goddamn threadban? Dems will never learn
I don’t get the obsession with allowing the states to determine abortion rights. Why stop there? Why not allow the county or city to locally mandate it? Neighborhoods? Or hell, why don’t we get really crazy and say that the individual just decides for themself.
State's rights: the invented fallback of shitty white people in the South that don't want to lose power over something or someone.
“Oh honey, this house is just perfect, but in the neighborhood charter it says that gays are allowed so our bank won’t finance this.”
The funniest part of all this states’ rights nonsense is the republicans would gladly accept a national ban on abortion which takes all the powers out of state hands. The point that republicans fail to see, is that the general population is far too bigoted and self-absorbed to make decisions for the greater good of society and equal treatment of citizens. There is no moral compass other than the skewed one that their preacher or Facebook dictates.
Lol, it's because he's a bigot you stupid ass. None of his decisions on political issues are based on law, they're all based on his politics and bigotry. My God you're fucking dumb.
you voted for trump, did you not? The escalated path this country is going down is a result of his election and the gop tripping over themselves to become the next trump.
I’ve thread banned people for this shit (so threads won’t get derailed) and people complain. Saul isn’t doing anything ban worthy. You guys tag him and he answers. If you don’t want the thread detailed like this don’t tag him. Don’t engage him for multiple pages. Ignore him. It’s easy to tread ban him for a couple days but someone will tag him and it will start again.
My wife’s friend is a democrat and just married a republican political consultant. She’s super upset and thinking about leaving him because he’s helping these goons and their anti abortion causes. Part of my fees bad for her but the other 90% is wondering what she thought he was doing the whole time.
So she had no problem with him working to strip minorities of their voting rights, but now that he’s going after female’s reproductive rights she’s appalled? Sounds to me like she should be happy with the face eating leopard that she’s married.
I’ve done it in the past but only set the ban for a day to let shit cool off. My point is mainly that you’re dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.
Ah yes complain about the damage being done to the court and then going into detail about the types of things that are damaging the court so the public can learn even more information about the damage being done is really galaxy brain thinking. This is like fixing a leak in a boat by making the hole bigger.
I also would like to see the justices on the Supreme Court post their way through this latest scandal.
part? She fucking financed it and tried to overthrow the election via texts to mark fn meadows. Clarence Thomas is my least favorite American right now
Article copy/pasted for those that want it: Justice Thomas Says Leaked Opinion Destroyed Trust at the Supreme Court In remarks at a conference in Dallas, he also denounced the recent protests at justices’ homes and said conservatives would not adopt such tactics. Spoiler WASHINGTON — The leak of a draft opinion has done irreparable damage to the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said at a conference in Dallas on Friday night, adding that it had destroyed trust among its members. “What happened at the court is tremendously bad,” Justice Thomas said. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them.” The leak of the opinion, which would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, was “like kind of an infidelity,” Justice Thomas said. “Look where we are, where that trust or that belief is gone forever,” he said. “And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder.” He drew a contrast with the court that sat for 11 years without a change in personnel before the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in 2005. “This is not the court of that era,” Justice Thomas said, adding: “We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.” There have been many changes since 2005, and only Justices Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer, who is about to retire, are still on the court. The setting for Justice Thomas’s remarks was a conference sponsored by several conservative and libertarian groups — the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution — that said it meant to “re-examine the problems of social, racial and economic inequality in America.” Justice Thomas took part in an after-dinner conversation with one of his former law clerks, John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and answered questions from the audience. Professor Yoo was one of the architects of the Bush administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Justice Thomas joked that his former clerk would face a confirmation battle were he nominated to the federal bench. Justice Thomas said the left had adopted tactics that conservatives would not employ. “You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way,” he said. “We didn’t throw temper tantrums. It is incumbent on us to always act appropriately, and not to repay tit for tat.” He added that conservatives had “never trashed a Supreme Court nominee.” He acknowledged that Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s third Supreme Court nominee, “did not get a hearing, but he was not trashed.” “You will not see the utter destruction of a single nominee,” Justice Thomas said. “You will also not see people going to other people’s houses, attacking them at dinner at a restaurant, throwing things on them.” He said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh had been subjected to particular abuse, but he referred only glancingly to his own brutal confirmation hearings, during which he angrily denied accusations of sexual harassment. Taking sides on a contested point, Justice Thomas said the Senate Republicans who blockaded Mr. Garland’s nomination were following a rule that President Biden, then a senator, had proposed, “which is you get no hearing in the last year of an administration.” Justice Thomas, the longest-serving member of the current court, has been a fierce opponent of Roe. On Friday, he said opposition to his nomination in 1991 was “by those people who were trying to keep me off the court over abortion.” At his confirmation hearings, however, he said, to the astonishment of many, that he had never discussed Roe, even though it was issued while he was a student at Yale Law School. The next year, he dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the majority reaffirmed the core of the Roe decision. Justice Thomas joined opinions saying Roe was “plainly wrong” and “should be overruled.” In his memoir, he reconciled his 1992 vote with his statements at his confirmation hearings the previous year. “By then,” he wrote, “I’d had ample time to study Roe in detail, and concluded that it was wrongly decided and should now be overruled.” In the intervening decades, Justice Thomas frequently voiced opposition to constitutional protection for abortion. “Nothing in our federal Constitution deprives the people of this country of the right to determine whether the consequences of abortion to the fetus and to society outweigh the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother,” he wrote in a 2000 dissent. “Although a state may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a state must do so.” On Friday, he suggested that respect for precedent — stare decisis, in legal jargon — was no reason to retain an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. “I always say that when someone uses stare decisis that means they’re out of arguments,” he said. “Now they’re just waving the white flag. And I just keep going.” Justice Thomas, who is 73, has had an eventful spring. He was hospitalized for a week in March after experiencing what the court said were flulike symptoms unrelated to the coronavirus. Around the same time, a barrage of text messages from his wife, Virginia Thomas, to the Trump White House came to light. The messages, sent to Mark Meadows, President Donald J. Trump’s chief of staff, during the weeks between the 2020 election and the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, showed that Ms. Thomas had actively supported the legal effort to overturn the vote. “Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” one message said. Justice Thomas nonetheless participated in a ruling in January on an emergency applicationfrom Mr. Trump asking the court to the block release of White House records concerning the attack on the Capitol. The court rejected the request, in a sharp rebuke to the former president. Only Justice Thomas noted a dissent, giving no reasons. He also participated in the court’s consideration of whether to hear a related appeal, one in which Mr. Meadows filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that “the outcome of this case will bear directly” on his own efforts to shield records from the House committee investigating the attacks beyond those he had provided. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, without noted dissent. There was no indication that Justice Thomas had recused himself. Justice Thomas, who went a decade without asking a question from the Supreme Court bench, has lately shed his reticence and is an active participant in oral arguments. Indeed, in what appears to be a tacit agreement among the justices and a testament to his seniority, he routinely asks the first questions of lawyers on both sides. If you read that and come to any other conclusion than that Thomas is hypocritical and a massive piece of shit, then you should re-read it.
the more they speak, the more the mask is off. Fuck them all. Clarence deserves no decorum of any kind.
What would really bring this full circle for me would be to find out that alito paid his mistress to have an abortion