1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[BrownFlush]

Settle down Tommy.

 

[El Correcto]

I've been assured the federal government will be there to defend the rights of the little guy.

I’m just curious what the argument would be for revisiting all these privacy law cases like Lawrence v Texas as the left says.
What separates Roe from say Griswold, Baird, Lawrence, Oswald from a legal perspective.
The hop from contraceptives to straight up sexual activity seems weird to me like what is found in Lawrence fighting off sodomy laws.

It would be nice to get the TLDR update what exactly the court ruled on to overturn Roe and if that precedent could be used against all these old privacy rulings as Clarence Thomas suggested, and why they should/shouldn’t be from a non hysterical leftist or religious perspective.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I’m just curious what the argument would be for revisiting all these privacy law cases like Lawrence v Texas as the left says.
What separates Roe from say Griswold, Baird, Lawrence, Oswald from a legal perspective.
The hop from contraceptives to straight up sexual activity seems weird to me like what is found in Lawrence fighting off sodomy laws.

It would be nice to get the TLDR update what exactly the court ruled on to overturn Roe and if that precedent could be used against all these old privacy rulings as Clarence Thomas suggested, and why they should/shouldn’t be from a non hysterical leftist or religious perspective.

Check out Viva Frei's live stream on Sunday. I'd be willing to bet Barnes will get into some of that, if you watch live you can ask him directly in the chat . Other law tubers to check out are Nick Rekeita, Nate the lawyer (he's a lefty), and legal bytes.

 

[bbsam]

Hmm what do you think about Lawrence vs Texas and anti sodomy laws?
The left says they are gonna come for those next now that roe is overturned. I don’t even know how the government would punish me for gay sex. Like your ex boyfriend report you or what?
I’ve never had sex in front of a cop, I don’t even know how they would know to write the ticket..

Family member report you maybe?

I mean if you’re gay, the assumption could be made that you’ve perhaps conducted yourself in such a manner. Maybe you’d have to prove that you haven’t?

Regardless, how and why is it any of their business to care let alone ask? Why should it even need to be a secret?

 

[bbsam]

I’m just curious what the argument would be for revisiting all these privacy law cases like Lawrence v Texas as the left says.
What separates Roe from say Griswold, Baird, Lawrence, Oswald from a legal perspective.
The hop from contraceptives to straight up sexual activity seems weird to me like what is found in Lawrence fighting off sodomy laws.

It would be nice to get the TLDR update what exactly the court ruled on to overturn Roe and if that precedent could be used against all these old privacy rulings as Clarence Thomas suggested, and why they should/shouldn’t be from a non hysterical leftist or religious perspective.

Because it’s been a darling of the conservative “culture war” mindset for years. The make up of the court is exactly what they’ve wanted for decades so why would they stop now?

 

[Non liberal]

And your deflection regarding the expected need for increased public funding is conclusive proof that the social challenges and economic challenges that are expected to arise from the end your so called killing of of humans is something you'll expect somebody else to address. You're clearly going to simply run away and hide.

So it’s better to just kill them? Why don’t you ask that child in 18 yrs if he was worth it? your economic challenges. Keep your ing pants on if you don’t want kids!

 

[Non liberal]

I thought you guys hate Nigs? You know with abortions banned there’s gonna be ton of them around now…….

What the hell you racist son of a bitch! Your just pissed because those kids will grow up and realize how lucky they are to be alive and see what a real hero looks like, justice clarence Thomas.

 

[allahuakbar]

So it’s better to just kill them? Why don’t you ask that child in 18 yrs if he was worth it?

less brown people means more for us whites brother. We need to increase abortions. Not ban.

 

[Non liberal]

less brown people means more for us whites brother. We need to increase abortions. Not ban.

You’re screwed up in the head. God says there is only one race. We’re all the same.

 

[El Correcto]

Family member report you maybe?

I mean if you’re gay, the assumption could be made that you’ve perhaps conducted yourself in such a manner. Maybe you’d have to prove that you haven’t?

Regardless, how and why is it any of their business to care let alone ask? Why should it even need to be a secret?

I predicted it earlier before reading about Lawrence v Texas. It was a jealous boyfriend calling the cops saying there was a crazed black dude with a gun. Cops came and apparently busted them having sex or said they did, that’s what started that legal battle. No the assumption is always innocent until proven guilty, I would never have to prove I didn’t do it, just cast reasonable doubt on if I did.

Because it’s been a darling of the conservative “culture war” mindset for years. The make up of the court is exactly what they’ve wanted for decades so why would they stop now?

I don’t view Clarence Thomas as that shallow. I don’t view Clarence Thomas as a cultural warrior. I think he is a pretty smart dude when it comes to constitution. I am curious about Clarence Thomas’s opinion on black civil rights and it’s impact on freedom of association. I’m curious what right the federal government has in enforcing these laws like preventing no blacks welcome in a movie theater or in a beauty salon.

I’d like to imagine a consistent stance from him when it comes to what the federal government is allowed to enforce when it comes to things like civil rights.

 

[El Correcto]

Check out Viva Frei's live stream on Sunday. I'd be willing to bet Barnes will get into some of that, if you watch live you can ask him directly in the chat . Other law tubers to check out are Nick Rekeita, Nate the lawyer (he's a lefty), and legal bytes.

Nah I’ll just go back and read Thomas’s and Scalia’s dissents on these things when I get a chance.
I’d like to understand their argument better and know exactly what is what when it comes to black and white originalist perspective on the constitution.

I don’t view the federal government as necessary in telling human beings not to be pricks. I’m an optimist and maybe stupid, but I have faith in Americans to make the right calls on a local level when it comes to government tyranny against their fellow citizens in this day and age.

 

[oldngray]

I predicted it earlier before reading about Lawrence v Texas. It was a jealous boyfriend calling the cops saying there was a crazed black dude with a gun. Cops came and apparently busted them having sex or said they did, that’s what started that legal battle. No the assumption is always innocent until proven guilty, I would never have to prove I didn’t do it, just cast reasonable doubt on if I did.

I don’t view Clarence Thomas as that shallow. I don’t view Clarence Thomas as a cultural warrior. I think he is a pretty smart dude when it comes to constitution. I am curious about Clarence Thomas’s opinion on black civil rights and it’s impact on freedom of association. I’m curious what right the federal government has in enforcing these laws like preventing no blacks welcome in a movie theater or in a beauty salon.

I’d like to imagine a consistent stance from him when it comes to what the federal government is allowed to enforce when it comes to things like civil rights.

Liberals have problems with Thomas ruling based on how the laws are written and not how people want the law to say. He is against judicial activism yet liberals attack him for strictly following the laws. Rowe was always known as a deeply flawed decision and most predicted it was only a matter of time before it was overturned. Congress had over 50 years to pass new laws but did nothing.

 

[El Correcto]

I thought you guys hate Nigs? You know with abortions banned there’s gonna be ton of them around now…….

So what does that tell you about the right and how wrong you’re when it comes to wah wah racism?

 

[bbsam]

I predicted it earlier before reading about Lawrence v Texas. It was a jealous boyfriend calling the cops saying there was a crazed black dude with a gun. Cops came and apparently busted them having sex or said they did, that’s what started that legal battle. No the assumption is always innocent until proven guilty, I would never have to prove I didn’t do it, just cast reasonable doubt on if I did.

I don’t view Clarence Thomas as that shallow. I don’t view Clarence Thomas as a cultural warrior. I think he is a pretty smart dude when it comes to constitution. I am curious about Clarence Thomas’s opinion on black civil rights and it’s impact on freedom of association. I’m curious what right the federal government has in enforcing these laws like preventing no blacks welcome in a movie theater or in a beauty salon.

I’d like to imagine a consistent stance from him when it comes to what the federal government is allowed to enforce when it comes to things like civil rights.

Listen to Clarence’s wife. She is definitely a cultural warrior. She could have written this opinion. Also note that this is a concurring opinion with the majority. He agrees with the majority and is spearheading further precedent reversal.

 

[wilberforce15]

Listen to Clarence’s wife. She is definitely a cultural warrior. She could have written this opinion. Also note that this is a concurring opinion with the majority. He agrees with the majority and is spearheading further precedent reversal.

Do you have something against reversing precedent?

 

[bbsam]

Do you have something against reversing precedent?

Only when the justices doing it have testified over and over as to its nearly sacred quality in American law.

 

[wilberforce15]

Only when the justices doing it have testified over and over as to its nearly sacred quality in American law.

So you expect judges to tell you how they will rule before the case comes up?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a court?
They said they respected and honored precedent. They never said specifically whether they would keep or throw out Roe or any other case. It would be a violation of ethics to give that kind of clarity. It would prejudice the court before the case.

 

[bbsam]

So you expect judges to tell you how they will rule before the case comes up?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a court?
They said they respected and honored precedent. They never said specifically whether they would keep or throw out Roe or any other case. It would be a violation of ethics to give that kind of clarity. It would prejudice the court before the case.

What about this case was different than the previous cases? Justice Thomas makes clear what he would like this activist court to do. Find cases to overturn longstanding precedent.

That is neither respecting nor honoring precedent.

 

[wilberforce15]

What about this case was different than the previous cases? Justice Thomas makes clear what he would like this activist court to do. Find cases to overturn longstanding precedent.

That is neither respecting nor honoring precedent.

It is honoring precedent, because you forget that Roe overturned precedent. Your entire liberal superstructure of legal victories for the last 100 years was overturning precedent. You just don't like it when your brand new precedent is overturned. And 10 or 50 years is brand new.

Obergefell is the radical overturning of precedent. Roe was the radical overturning of precedent. Etc.

Thomas wants to go back to older precedent. Roe was judicial activism. Thomas wants to honor the way it was treated before that.
There were no lies.

All judges, right and left, treat this the same way in hearings. They cannot give specific answers about specific cases, lest they prejudice the court before they hear it.

 

[fishtm2001]

"There have only been three justices in American history who were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote, and who were confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half the country. All three of them sit on the Supreme Court right now, and all three were appointed by donald."

Vox