Thought for the Day

[bluesoul]

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

[KelliBlueEyes]

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

FYI I enjoy reading @broncofan and @Stavros posts, probably other ppl do too

[broncofan]

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

Seriously, why do you read this section? Why not just read what interests you (imaginary, poorly written dialogue) and ignore things you have no interest in?

It's bizarre to say what you're saying when you take up pages writing stuff that is literally incoherent. Who exactly is the audience for that?

[bluesoul]

FYI I enjoy reading @broncofan and @Stavros posts, probably other ppl do too

i'm sure you do sweet heart. i love reading about girls sniffing each others others assholes. thats my thing. thats what turn me on. sometimes i love just reading about who loves what they read. you know? it's boring. i don't fucking wright an essay about it. but whatever.

wanna write an essay. write me a paper honey. make it pure. tell me what you feel, and why you feel it. and don't forgot, tell me who is your telller.

[fred41]

i'm sure you do sweet heart. i love reading about girls sniffing each others others assholes. thats my thing. thats what turn me on. sometimes i love just reading about who loves what they read. you know? it's boring. i don't fucking wright an essay about it. but whatever.

wanna write an essay. write me a paper honey. make it pure. tell me what you feel, and why you feel it. and don't forgot, tell me who is your telller.

I'm sure this sounded better in your head.

maybe you should lay off the meth a bit.

[broncofan]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/24/politi...ors/index.html

Justice Kennedy is thinking about retiring. He is the closest person on the Supreme Court to a centrist. He wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, which said that states cannot ban gay marriage. He re-affirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992 and if replaced, Roe might be overturned and some states will make abortion illegal again. He has voted with conservatives on gun rights, I'm assuming Heller, where the Court ruled a handgun ban violated the second amendment. He also voted with the majority on Citizens United, a decision that upheld the right of corporations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns as an aspect of their first amendment right to speech.

Trump said during the campaign that gay marriage was established law but Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I'm not sure what the basis of this distinction is, and it will be difficult to find a justice who affirms the right to gay marriage but strikes down abortion rights. Either way, if Justice Kennedy retires it's going to have a major affect on social issues in this country.

[bluesoul]

I'm sure this sounded better in your head.

maybe you should lay off the meth a bit.

hey what can i say i live on the wild side

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=broncofan;1774479
Justice Kennedy is thinking about retiring. He is the closest person on the Supreme Court to a centrist. He wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, which said that states cannot ban gay marriage. He re-affirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992 and if replaced, Roe might be overturned and some states will make abortion illegal again. He has voted with conservatives on gun rights, I'm assuming Heller, where the Court ruled a handgun ban violated the second amendment. He also voted with the majority on Citizens United, a decision that upheld the right of corporations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns as an aspect of their first amendment right to speech.
Trump said during the campaign that gay marriage was established law but Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I'm not sure what the basis of this distinction is, and it will be difficult to find a justice who affirms the right to gay marriage but strikes down abortion rights. Either way, if Justice Kennedy retires it's going to have a major affect on social issues in this country.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks so far as if every policy decision the current administration has made or proposed is not a new policy, but a reversal, o amendment of whatever the policy was during the Obama administration. I cannot think of a Presidency so obsessed with its predecessor as to shape most if not all of its policy portfolio on revenge, it looks as childish as it is, and has not produced any benefits for the USA at all, though financially the President and his family are better off for the deals that have been made.

So repealing Roe-vs-Wade would be a triumph for a small group of Christian fanatics in the US, but I am not sure it is necessary. From what I have read, individual states now impose strict term limits on women who want an abortion, and have the power to so severely limit the funding of Planned Parenthood provisions in their state the service might as well not exist. 'States rights' is an important part of democracy in the US because it prevents the Federal government from imposing one policy for all, even in in some areas this might seem to be a good thing.
We don't even have this in the UK as Scotland and Northern Ireland have different powers and even when the UK Parliament passes a law, it is not automatically implemented in devolved provinces -the 1967 Abortion Act passed by Parliament was never incorporated into Northern Ireland's law so that abortion is illegal there unless for medical reasons. It would have been possible for the British government to impose the change of law when it ruled Northern Ireland directly as a consequence of the Troubles, but it knew it was an unpopular policy among both Catholics and Protestants and it was seen as too much to add to existing problems; but so too did Tony Blair's Labour government refuse to insist the law be applied across the whole of the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35980195

If the US Supreme Court is to have another 'Conservative' Justice appointed to replace the next person to leave, I think you may want to shift your attention from abortion to voting rights, which seems to me to be a key policy in individual states that directly threatens the democratic process. When you count in millions the numbers of Americans who are denied the right to vote, the quality of democracy is strained, as if through a sieve, to prevent certain people, mostly Black Americans, from being registered, or being taken off the register if they are. Is it also wrong to deny the vote to men and women who have been in prison-? If they did the time for the crime, why extend their punishment forever after as if they were unfit to be equal citizens, not least when an American can be imprisoned for trivial offences?

[broncofan]

Regulation of abortion is okay as long as it is not an undue burden on the right to get an abortion. This has led to a whole bunch of cases defining what undue burden is, including term limits, consultations and waiting periods, notification of spouse or parents. With gay marriage, before Obergefell it became difficult to determine where and to what extent people were considered married. For the purpose of health care plans, tax filing, and partition of assets during divorce, the piecemeal regime was challenging.

I agree with you about voting rights. I hope there is some headway on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has said that if districting in congressional elections has an obviously partisan purpose, they will step in to remedy it. This is extremely important for the house of representatives, as Democratic numbers in the house would likely be much greater without such tactics. For instance, Donald Trump won Wisconsin by 1 percent, yet Republicans control house seats there by a majority of 64-35. The formula the court is considering using is to test the margins of victory, which is just common sense. This case is going through the courts right now, but if successful, might not even be ready in time for 2018.

The element you're talking about, voter suppression is also important, but there was a big setback in 2013, the Shelby County case. The voting rights act required jurisdictions with the worst history of discrimination to notify the federal government of any change to their voting qualifications. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the act that included the formula whereby the worst jurisdictions would be determined, stating it was an out of date formula and did not necessarily apply the same way it did in 1965 when the act was passed. As a result, unless Congress acts to remedy voter suppression by amending the voting rights act, we're unlikely to see any near term changes. Which makes it almost a chicken and egg problem since without a Democratic Congress, the will to remedy voter suppression is not there, since purged voters tend to vote for the Democrats.

[flabbybody]

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

many many people read this. Your inappropriate comments are interrupting the flow of this thread. Kindly desist or you'll be shown the exit.