SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

Canada geese. They're not Canadian. Nothing that angry can be.

No, they're Canadian geese. We know that Canada has secretly found a way to channel all their rage and frustration into their geese to send them south for the winter. It just seems that there are some recent bugs in the system which has resulted in some people still being very upset over some vaccine mandate that doesn't exist.

[Poopymonster]

Canada geese. They're not Canadian. Nothing that angry can be.

It was explained that the Canadian geese exist as they are to absorb and concentrate all the negative emotions Canadians would feel living in a socialist communist frozen blightscape.

Otherwise the Canadians would have come across the border and lakes on mooseback bearing hockey sticks and real beer looking for a fight.

[gondrin]

Canada geese. They're not Canadian. Nothing that angry can be.

Nope. You don't get to disown those evil things. Canada has to own those geese. They are like a massive mood ring. They absorb all the negative emotions around them. That is why most Canadians are mellow. Those geese absorb all the rest of those emotions.

[Orange Joe]

I see you're not claiming ownership of those assholes that shit all over my lawn. How dare.

As someone who did lawn care near water. I can not tell you how much I hate geese over ANY other animal in the world.... lol

[Glorious Leader]

Canada geese. They're not Canadian. Nothing that angry can be.

Dude they're fucking savage. You ever walk by one with her little ducklings in tow. Mama duck will hiss and get real fucling aggressive.

[Paranoid Android]

Justice Alito jokes with Justice Kagan that, "You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time," during oral arguments in a free speech case.

Audio in link. Please listen for full context.

Umm, keeping it here but I could put this in the Alito thread about the leaks. Geez when I can post in multiple threads about SCOTUS.

So this is a joke? I guess Alito is saying that it would be wrong to force a black Santa to take pictures with kids in kkk outfits. Where as kkk is not a protected class. The Colorado lawyer points this out.

[Fugus]

Justice Alito jokes with Justice Kagan that, "You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time," during oral arguments in a free speech case.

Audio in link. Please listen for full context.

Umm, keeping it here but I could put this in the Alito thread about the leaks. Geez when I can post in multiple threads about SCOTUS.

So this is a joke? I guess Alito is saying that it would be wrong to force a black Santa to take pictures with kids in kkk outfits. Where as kkk is not a protected class. The Colorado lawyer points this out.

If he “jokes” like that there, gives you an idea what he says in private.

[Levelfive]

Justice Alito jokes with Justice Kagan that, "You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time," during oral arguments in a free speech case.

Audio in link. Please listen for full context.

Umm, keeping it here but I could put this in the Alito thread about the leaks. Geez when I can post in multiple threads about SCOTUS.

So this is a joke? I guess Alito is saying that it would be wrong to force a black Santa to take pictures with kids in kkk outfits. Where as kkk is not a protected class. The Colorado lawyer points this out.

He's an absolute horror show. Good analysis here of how the right wing of the Court is trying to pretend it's about content rather than immutable characteristics: https://www.thenation.com/article/so...-303-creative/

"That’s why all of the inverted Klan analogies the conservatives were trying out didn’t make any sense. A black carpenter can refuse to make a cross for a person who wants to take it to a Klan rally. But that carpenter cannot refuse to make a cross for white people. The Klan analogy works only if you assume that every white person who would ask for a cross would only want it for a Klan rally, but I think white people are better than Alito and Barrett would have you believe.

But conservatives don’t see it that way because they came into oral arguments determined to frame Smith’s discrimination as content-based instead of status based. Along with Alito and Barrett, justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanugh all asked questions focused on Smith’s right to refuse to work on same-sex weddings, and waved away lawyers from Colorado (and the U.S. Department of Justice) who argued that discriminating against the “message” of same-sex marriage (that is, refusing that specific service) is the same as discriminating against LGBTQ couples looking for website designs."

[postman1782]

If he “jokes” like that there, gives you an idea what he says in private.

He probably keeps his robes and pointy hat in a sealed case.

[Fugus]

He probably keeps his robes and pointy hat in a sealed case.

And we have a judge in Texas attempting to give wife beaters their firearms back based on his last screwed up ruling.

This one, I can see a local ISP refusing to offer service to LBGTQ individuals and I can see many other companies starting to refuse to offer services to companies that refuse to service them as well.

Imagine Comcast or Spectrum refusing service to LBGTQ and start seeing stores refuse to offer supplies to other businesses that refuse to serve LBGTQ. That can be one hell of a cluster fuck.

[unfilteredJW]

Suppose this could go here.
House passes historic marriage equality bill

Spoiler: 

The Respect for Marriage Act passed 258-169, with 39 Republicans voting yes.

The House on Thursday passed a bill to codify federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages, which now goes to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature.

The Respect for Marriage Act passed with bipartisan support in a 258-169 vote. Thirty-nine Republicans joined Democrats in voting yes on the measure.

The legislation passed with cheers and hugs on the floor. Former Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat who has long fought for marriage equality, was present for the vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Rep. David Cicilline, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Jerry Nadler and Republican Sen. Susan Collins held a bill enrollment ceremony celebrating the bill's passage.

"What a great day," Pelosi said at the ceremony, thanking her colleagues for their support. "At last we have history in the making, but not only are we on the ride sight of history, we are on the right side of the future: expanding freedom in America."

Pelosi, who is leaving her post as House Democratic leader, has said she is "particularly happy" the Respect for Marriage Act will be one of the last bills she signs in her role.

"Once signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act will help prevent right-wing extremists from upending the lives of loving couples traumatizing kids across the country, and turning back the clock on hard-won progress," Pelosi said in a floor speech ahead of the vote.

Biden has said he's prepared to sign the measure after it passed the House. In a statement after Senate passage last week, he said he will "promptly and proudly sign it into law."

Ensuring same-sex marriage rights are protected between states became a top priority for Democrats in light of the Supreme Court's June decision to overrule its precedent in 1973's Roe v. Wade guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion.

Justice Clarence Thomas indicated in a concurring opinion at the time that he would like to see the court reverse the 2015 ruling Obergefell v. Hodges guaranteeing the national right to same-sex marriage, which was decided on similar grounds as Roe.

The Respect for Marriage Act will not codify Obergefell and set a national requirement that all states must license same-sex marriages. But it will require individual states to recognize a same-sex (or interracial) marriage that was lawfully performed in another state.

The Senate passed the bill last week, 61-36 -- marking a victory for Democrats during the lame-duck after months of negotiations with Republicans. Twelve members of the GOP voted in support of the legislation.

Schumer at Thursday's bill enrollment ceremony said the issue is personal for many in Congress. Schumer's daughter is married to her wife.

"Thanks to the tireless advocacy of many -- many in this room -- and the dogged work by many of my colleagues, my grandchild will live in a world that will respect and honor their mothers' marriage," he said. "So yes, this is about millions of LGBTQ Americans in the country but countless other lives of children and families will also be impacted."

The House passed a similar version of this legislation earlier this year, with 47 Republicans supporting it. The Senate version includes new language to ease some GOP concerns about religious freedom.

Bare fucking minimum.

[Resurgo]

And we have a judge in Texas attempting to give wife beaters their firearms back based on his last screwed up ruling.

This one, I can see a local ISP refusing to offer service to LBGTQ individuals and I can see many other companies starting to refuse to offer services to companies that refuse to service them as well.

Imagine Comcast or Spectrum refusing service to LBGTQ and start seeing stores refuse to offer supplies to other businesses that refuse to serve LBGTQ. That can be one hell of a cluster fuck.

Well this is in TX, so no big surprise here...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...deanda-becerra

[fwc577]

Well this is in TX, so no big surprise here...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...deanda-becerra

Oh, this dude didn't like the sexual revolution? Hope he has daughters who one day start an OnlyFans because they hate their father.

[Edge-]

Since this thread became more of a catch-all...

We're finally moving to the "pregnant women count as 2 people when driving" reality.

Best get your pregnancies registered!

lol, you gotta register your pregnancy with the Department of Transportation? From the party that claims they hate the government creating lists of people and tracking personal information about them? Will you get a barcode? I heard those are really scary!

[s_bushido]

We may joke about this, but it needs to be struck down everywhere it pops up. It's literally nothing more than a tool for them to try to justify their "a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder" bullshit.

[Varx]

We may joke about this, but it needs to be struck down everywhere it pops up. It's literally nothing more than a tool for them to try to justify their "a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder" bullshit.

Well a fetus IS a person, so....

It ain't a pumpkin that's for sure.

But leftists clearly don't consider it a person to justify to themselves that they killed a baby.

But here's the thing. Let's say person hood is determined at 25 weeks or whenever you guys consider person hood. What about 24 hours before reaching that threshold, you still okay with killing it?

[s_bushido]

Well a fetus IS a person, so....

It ain't a pumpkin that's for sure.

But leftists clearly don't consider it a person to justify to themselves that they killed a baby.

But here's the thing. Let's say person hood is determined at 25 weeks or whenever you guys consider person hood. What about 24 hours before reaching that threshold, you still okay with killing it?

In in the interest of not feeding the troll, I believe the best response is: "Fuck off."

[Cthulhu 2020]

In in the interest of not feeding the troll, I believe the best response is: "Fuck off."

I dunno man, they're really hardcore fetishizing this one issue. But we also know they're one of those breeding fetishists.

You have to wonder at one point conservatives will realize that even with legal abortion, the human population growth at its current rate is utterly unsustainable.

[Varx]

In in the interest of not feeding the troll, I believe the best response is: "Fuck off."

I'll take that as "you're right but selfish interest trump's innocent baby's life " whether it's a zygote or 6 months

[Ivanstone]

Well a fetus IS a person, so....

It ain't a pumpkin that's for sure.

But leftists clearly don't consider it a person to justify to themselves that they killed a baby.

But here's the thing. Let's say person hood is determined at 25 weeks or whenever you guys consider person hood. What about 24 hours before reaching that threshold, you still okay with killing it?

We'll start having a nice discussion about personhood after conservatives start thinking women, children and fetuses deserve healthcare.

Till then...

Fuck off.