Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

Good, end the freebies for illegals.

There will always be undocumented kids in the country. You really don't want them in school? What do you think that will do for public health and public safety?

Who is going to pay for it? Because right now they are just sucking away financial resources from citizen children and dragging down test scores.

So what do you plan on doing with them? Putting them to work in the factories? At the tender age of 5? Sounds right up your alley. Earn your keep!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

Good, end the freebies for illegals.

There will always be undocumented kids in the country. You really don't want them in school? What do you think that will do for public health and public safety?

Who is going to pay for it? Because right now they are just sucking away financial resources from citizen children and dragging down test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

I hope so. I also hope they look at and revise the IDEA. Its good in theory, but activists have run wild with it and its going to bankrupt public education. If we don't solve these two issues (recent immigrants and special education) within a generation public schools will be a complete joke and the only students there will be poor or disabled. Everyone else will have fled.

Wow, going after literally everyone Jesus told you to protect. Amazing.

Does repealing Roe vs Wade bring into question all cases that were decided based on substantive due process? That certain unenumerated rights — rights that are never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution — are nonetheless implicit in a passage of the 14th Amendment providing that no one shall be denied “liberty” without “due process of law.”

If the right can overturn Roe vs Wade but bringing into question the due process law then all cases tied to this can also be brought into question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

Please spare us the BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor must resign immediately, so that Biden can replace her before Trump gets into office.

They will never be able to even get the hearings done in time.

Just hope that Sotomayor can hold on for another 4 years.

Expect Thomas to retire and become a board member of dozens of corporations.

I agree. Sotomayor can and I pray will hold on. Thomas will retire in early 2025 and then can be even more open in getting money thrown at home. Trump will very quickly get someone in their 40s on. Alito does the same and the same happens in early 2026 at the latest, obv before midterms. The only wildcard is Roberts.

Roberts will stick around. He thinks he is the voice of reason. And he probably is.

Thomas will definitely retire, I would bet my car that people are already preparing his golden parachute to entice him to GTFO so he doesn't expire during a democratic presidency.

Alito should probably retire as soon as they swear in Thomas replacement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

I don't know. There was pretty big bipartisan support for the SCHIP act. Republicans will go after the parents but they don't generally go after kids any more than democrats.

I think Trump's immigration guy said something about how there won't be a need for separating children from their parents, since everyone can be deported together. I'm assuming that going after kids is not going to be a problem.

There will still be the problem of the unaccompanied minors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

Good, end the freebies for illegals.

There will always be undocumented kids in the country. You really don't want them in school? What do you think that will do for public health and public safety?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

I don't know. There was pretty big bipartisan support for the SCHIP act. Republicans will go after the parents but they don't generally go after kids any more than democrats.

I think Trump's immigration guy said something about how there won't be a need for separating children from their parents, since everyone can be deported together. I'm assuming that going after kids is not going to be a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

+1

False, they made a clear distinction -- they had to consider protecting the life of an innocent baby. Nothing like gay marriage -- unless you're justifying pedophiles I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

I hope so. I also hope they look at and revise the IDEA. Its good in theory, but activists have run wild with it and its going to bankrupt public education. If we don't solve these two issues (recent immigrants and special education) within a generation public schools will be a complete joke and the only students there will be poor or disabled. Everyone else will have fled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Pretty sure Republicans moto is "Rules For Thee but Not for Me".

You know his wife is white, right? You think he's looking for an annulment?

I don’t think Loving will happen. But Plyler
(guaranteeing education for recently emigrated children) is going to go before 2028.

Good, end the freebies for illegals.

Disparate impact tests/prevents will also be weakened or eliminated entirely. Griggs V. Duke Power is likely on the chopping block. Same is true for any disparate impact rules related to fair housing.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

No, that would be so unpopular they’d never do that

They will however go after gay marriage and will probably allow more “conscience objection laws based on firmly held beliefs” type of stuff. You know more or allowing doctors to not treat trans people based on organized religion.

They'll never go after gay marriage. It's making too many gay people miserable.

Actually gay men are the happiest and longest marriages. Lesbian marriages have the highest divorce rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

Look dude. The point being there are 6 extremely religious people on the SC. They chose to destroy the concept of stare decisis when it was convenient to further their ideology. “Settled case law” is no more and now the door is open to do it to other things, like Gay marriage.

No they didn't. They overturned Roe. Roe was bad law, every legal scholar knows this but they like the outcome.

Interesting how they chose that law, huh? 50 years it had been standing. What a coincidence it was ripe for reexamination!