And now Clarence Thomas is talking about taking away contraceptives!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is Thomas still a sitting member of the court?

Because he didn’t drop dead in his recent hospital stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

I don't think BC will disappear. Why? Because big pharma and doctors can make loads of money over women's reproductive systems. And they can influence Congress to safeguard their profits....in the end, these decisions will be made not by the Court, Congress, or the People - but by big corporations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How this man and his wife are still walking free is a mystery to me. In other countries, when you fail at a coup, it’s the last thing you do.

How are so many of the insurrectionists walking free when people who have been alleged to have stolen backpacks are in solitary for two years and those who are alleged to have passed a single counterfeit bill are lynched by the police in broad daylight?

Why is anyone still in the GOP?

Because this is exactly what they want!

And gullible suckers who fall for their CRT, trans, cancel culture, etc boogeymen are their useful idiots who keep them in power.

I guess these are tools I was talking about when I asked why anyone is still in the GOP. There are so achingly many stupid people who do the GOP’s dirty work for them, who denigrate everyone even slightly more left than they are as “extremists.” It is so obvious that the GOP means to end the United States as we know it.

I’d happily end it. Divide the country. I don’t want to shared ANYTHING with red states. Let them live under Christian Taliban rule and leave them rest of us out of it.

+1000. So done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

I don't think BC will disappear. Why? Because big pharma and doctors can make loads of money over women's reproductive systems. And they can influence Congress to safeguard their profits....in the end, these decisions will be made not by the Court, Congress, or the People - but by big corporations.

Fertility doctors and any doctors who prescribe birth control will not be covered by malpractice insurers. That is all it takes! Thanks republicans! Thanks Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate it here

Earth? Me too friend

[Anonymous]

The dude and his cultist bride don't have kids, right? Also, if they strike down "loveing" isn't his marriage moot?

Signed, not a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

I don't think BC will disappear. Why? Because big pharma and doctors can make loads of money over women's reproductive systems. And they can influence Congress to safeguard their profits....in the end, these decisions will be made not by the Court, Congress, or the People - but by big corporations.

Unfortunaly, most of the contriceptive phraceutices are off patent and all will be off patent 14 yrs after they come to market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

I don't think BC will disappear. Why? Because big pharma and doctors can make loads of money over women's reproductive systems. And they can influence Congress to safeguard their profits....in the end, these decisions will be made not by the Court, Congress, or the People - but by big corporations.

Unfortunaly, most of the contriceptive phraceutices are off patent and all will be off patent 14 yrs after they come to market.

Yes, I am drinking right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How this man and his wife are still walking free is a mystery to me. In other countries, when you fail at a coup, it’s the last thing you do.

How are so many of the insurrectionists walking free when people who have been alleged to have stolen backpacks are in solitary for two years and those who are alleged to have passed a single counterfeit bill are lynched by the police in broad daylight?

Why is anyone still in the GOP?

Because this is exactly what they want!

And gullible suckers who fall for their CRT, trans, cancel culture, etc boogeymen are their useful idiots who keep them in power.

*glaring at you, VA voters*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How this man and his wife are still walking free is a mystery to me. In other countries, when you fail at a coup, it’s the last thing you do.

How are so many of the insurrectionists walking free when people who have been alleged to have stolen backpacks are in solitary for two years and those who are alleged to have passed a single counterfeit bill are lynched by the police in broad daylight?

Why is anyone still in the GOP?

Because this is exactly what they want!

And gullible suckers who fall for their CRT, trans, cancel culture, etc boogeymen are their useful idiots who keep them in power.

*glaring at you, VA voters*

I voted for the other guy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

because the Fertility Industry and the Adoption Industry rely on Upper Middle Class clients and what the egg heads who wanted abortion banned so bad don't realize is that the ONLY result of this SCOTUS decision will be:

1) lots of AA babies overwhelming up foster care because anti-choice rednecks are not going to adopting their forced births

2) massive voting by every woman 18 and older in America to elect a Dem Controlled Senate/ House

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And gullible suckers who fall for their CRT, trans, cancel culture, etc boogeymen are their useful idiots who keep them in power.

Perhaps Democrats should change their positions on these issues?