Page 12 of 15

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:09 pm
by GORDON
You've lost me.

SCOTUS took away from women the reproductive rights that men never had, evening the score.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:20 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:09 pm You've lost me.

SCOTUS took away from women the reproductive rights that men never had, evening the score.
Men probably never had them, because they don't have wombs.

And losing rights isn't a win.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:47 pm
by GORDON
Nor is never having the rights in the first place.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:56 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:47 pm Nor is never having the rights in the first place.
Sometimes you have to make things simple.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:01 pm
by GORDON
True, "LOL Fuck Men" is pretty simple.

But back to my entire point, SCOTUS stripping women of reproductive rights simply put them on the exact same level as men.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:13 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:01 pm But back to my entire point, SCOTUS stripping women of reproductive rights simply put them on the exact same level as men.
Disagree, but whatevs.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:14 pm
by GORDON
What's there to disagree with?

In case of an accidental pregnancy, men had no say in the outcome.

Now in the case of an accidental pregnancy, women have no say in the outcome, either.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm
by Leisher

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:19 pm
by Leisher
SCOTUS Justice wants ethics rules.

Without Googling or cheating, see if you can guess who.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2023 6:51 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:19 pm Without Googling or cheating, see if you can guess who.
One of the women, is my guess. Based on how you phrased it, I'm going to guess the conservative one :)

But I'm guessing more than one wants it.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2023 12:50 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2023 6:51 am But I'm guessing more than one wants it.
And I'm guessing more than one doesn't.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:22 am
by Leisher
SCOTUS looking at the 2nd amendment again.

Let's see if fear beats our rights this time.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:29 am
by GORDON
They nuked abortion. I bet nuking guns would make them less hated at their cocktail parties.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:47 am
by TheCatt
It was only a year ago that the Supreme Court issued a landmark Second Amendment opinion that expanded gun rights nationwide and established that firearms rules must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”
This statement is hilarious considering the lack of consistency between our nation's "historical tradition" and their decision.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:52 am
by TheCatt
Gotta get those private jet flights somehow.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 10:06 am
by Leisher
SCOTUS lets a ban on conversion therapy stand.
“conversion therapy” – a scientifically discredited practice intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – as it applies to minors.
Totally agree regarding sexual orientation. I do not agree when it comes to gender identity. This is why those two things should not be lumped together. They are NOT the same thing.

Being attracted to the same sex and wanting to physically change your sex are not in the same universe.

I really need someone to explain to me why wanting to cut off your arm is a mental illness, but wanting to cut off your dick isn't.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:56 am
by Leisher
Passes on chance to weigh in on CA's ban on flavored cigarettes.

Deferring to the state's authority is consistent...

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:30 am
by TheCatt
SCOTUS rejects X's appeal to comment on investigations
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by Elon Musk's X Corp to consider whether the social media company, formerly called Twitter, can publicly disclose how often federal law enforcement seeks information about users for national security investigations.

The justices declined to hear X's appeal of a lower court's ruling holding that the FBI's restrictions on what the company could say publicly about the investigations did not violate its free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 1:28 pm
by Leisher
If it's just a number and doesn't hinder or hurt any open cases, then why not allow it?

The SCOTUS thread

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 1:29 pm
by GORDON
.... election year?