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.

That's not what Dobbs said. Dobbs held that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. That's literally the holding as it is described on the first page of the opinion. It had nothing to do with federal vs. state authority. As a practical matter, abortion has become a state-level issue, but that's not the holding in Dobbs.

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.

So you’d be OK with a government tha forced you to treat LGBTQ+ even if went against your beliefs? Ridiculous. Doctors / hospitals should be transparent about what they will or won’t do. often they not doing things because they are run by private equity now but that’s a separate issue. Maybe we need different medical designations to handle this.

As a doctor you took an oath, to do no harm and to treat people medically as needed. You don't get to choose who or what to treat. Similarly, a pharmacist does not get to decide they won't prescribe BC or Plan B if it is legal in that state---similarly, if you are muslim you don't get a job in a pork processing facility and then claim you cannot work on the line with pork. It's part of the job, if you cannot perform the job, you don't get to have the job and pick and choose what you do

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If Dems try to campaign on this issue, they will probably lose even more in 2028. Parents will always look out for their own children first and many will not support requiring this at the federal level. Public school enrollment for kids without legal status will become another state level policy decision. I also think that federal funding is likely to be eliminated for kids without legal status.

correct, these isn't an issue, and you just deport the whole family together no need to separate the children.

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.

Thomas is going to retire. No way Alito and Thomas don't retire in the next 2 years. So Trump/Vance can appoint replacements. They have the senate, they have the WH, it's all they need

Anonymous wrote:

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

And then what? It’ll still be a huge majority when the older two conservative SC justice’s retire now to allow room for some 35 year old zealots. Get used to losing! Maybe tone down the woke bullsht and the whining and focus on the economy and quality of life stuff like fighting crime. Or don’t. Continue to focus on fringe crap and defunding the police and lose.

So annoying. I’m liberal and I can’t believe we’ve lost abortion in so many places and it’s whiny other liberals who have done it.

We will be living with a Trump appointed Supreme Court for the next 30+ years. Alito and Thomas will resign and trump will appoint equally (if not more so) crazy evil justices and they will be young. So we will have 5 of the SC appointed by trump for 30+ years. This is perhaps the biggest impact he will make on the country

I am a Dem and fine with doing away with birthright citizenship. At least one of your parents should be a citizen for 6 months before the baby is born to get citizenship. Lots of other countries have requirements to be able claim citizenship. Birth tourism is a problem here.

Tbh, Trump will absolutely need to put together a good, seasonal guest worker program.

Republican small business owners in red state are about to get absolutely crushed by mass deportations.

Republicans no longer have an excuse for not reforming the immigration system. I'm happy to let them own it and get the win if we can just put together something that's tough yet sane.

Climate change is going to make human migration patterns even worse and more intense.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

They'll leave. No plan required.

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?

Don't care. They'll leave when the gravy train ends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Pyler V. Doe will be overturned. it’s likely that SCOTUS will decide children without legal status in the US are not entitled to a public education.

This would be terrible for immigrants, and it would be terrible for non-immigrants, but Trump, at the guidance of Steven Miller, will do it, because they believe that people of color will stop coming to this country if people know their kids won't get educated.

The cruelty is the point. Trump and Miller already illustrated this from 2016-2020 when they separated immigrant children from their parents (and lost a significant number of them).

Why would this be terrible for immigrants? Prioritizing resources for those who came over legally could actually help them, as funds currently spent on illegal immigration could better serve legal immigrants’ needs. Many liberals don’t seem to understand that a large portion of Hispanics dislike illegal immigration, especially those living in border towns. In areas like Starr County, Texas—a border county with a 97% Hispanic population—Trump secured over 57% of the vote in the 2024 election, flipping a Democratic stronghold for the first time in 128 years. This shift isn’t isolated, as several other South Texas counties also demonstrated increased support for Trump. Nationally, his Hispanic support rose from about 28% in 2020 to as much as 37-40% in 2024, with Hispanic men showing a marked increase, as 54% voted for him in 2024, compared to 36% four years earlier.

The only major pro-illegal immigration supporters seem to be white liberals, often out of touch and far removed from border communities, where they aren’t impacted by these issues in their schools or neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:I think Pyler V. Doe will be overturned. it’s likely that SCOTUS will decide children without legal status in the US are not entitled to a public education.

This would be terrible for immigrants, and it would be terrible for non-immigrants, but Trump, at the guidance of Steven Miller, will do it, because they believe that people of color will stop coming to this country if people know their kids won't get educated.

The cruelty is the point. Trump and Miller already illustrated this from 2016-2020 when they separated immigrant children from their parents (and lost a significant number of them).

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 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.

Non disabled children are entitled to an appropriate education too. And right now they aren't getting it thanks to all of the allowed behaviors in school due to IEPs. I'm 100% for special education for academic learning disabilites. I'm OVER the $hitty behavior being masked as "special needs" and I'm tired of parents being gaslit that they should be fine with this behavior in the classroom.

Anonymous wrote:Settled law

Clearly, there is no such thing. Even the law against perjury isn’t settled, I guess. Or the law against fraud, or stealing classified documents, or rape, or campaign, finance, violations, etc., etc. etc..

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.

We are. Because the impact on public health and safety would be more costly.

You want to have an impervious border? Good luck.

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.

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.

If Dems try to campaign on this issue, they will probably lose even more in 2028. Parents will always look out for their own children first and many will not support requiring this at the federal level. Public school enrollment for kids without legal status will become another state level policy decision. I also think that federal funding is likely to be eliminated for kids without legal status.