Politics Thread

[paulxu]

God help the US higher education system.
This is the bullshit your side is doing Paul.

https://apple.news/A1LyokaMVYTNeTUAmGLmFLDA

You join an opinion that is very unpopular with the majority of Americans, you might get some people exercising their right to disagree with the ruling.
He suggests that maybe same sex marriage and contraception could be on the agenda to do away with those rights. (no mention of inter racial marriage; wonder why not?)

But he could have continued to teach the class. Man up and do it. He chose to opt out; they didn't ask him to quit.

“Justice Thomas informed GW Law that he is unavailable to co-teach a constitutional law seminar this fall,” George Washington University spokesperson Josh Grossman said in a statement.

You young 'uns might want to stock up on contraception means in case they outlaw that next.

[GoMuskies]

The opinion was very popular with me (and my wife)!

Justice Thomas came to Chapel Hill and spoke to my 1L class at Carolina Law back in 2000 (with zero backlash from a group that was very liberal). There is a 0% chance that could happen today. It's pretty amazing, really.

[XU_Lou]

I'm glad Paul and Bobbie continue to focus on issues that literally no one gives a rats ass about.

[Strange Brew]

You join an opinion that is very unpopular with the majority of Americans, you might get some people exercising their right to disagree with the ruling.
He suggests that maybe same sex marriage and contraception could be on the agenda to do away with those rights. (no mention of inter racial marriage; wonder why not?)

But he could have continued to teach the class. Man up and do it. He chose to opt out; they didn't ask him to quit.


You young 'uns might want to stock up on contraception means in case they outlaw that next.

The students lost a good Legal mind. I may have disagreed with RBG but I would’ve listen to her speak and have been interested in her class.

This whole thing about contraception is dumb and isn’t going to happen. The Court could send homosexual marriage back to the States (per the Constitution) but I doubt it as this Court has said it won’t take up the case (I hope they don’t personally). The inter-racial red herring is so dumb you should be embarrassed.

Rights are not granted by the Court or removed either. That’s not how a Constitutional Republic with Democratically elected Representatives works at all.

[Smails]

Let's see. I sent a link that has MTG saying she is a Christian Nationalist. Are you saying she's lying? Did they make up the quote from her?
You guys need a LOT of help.

Again...a few interviews/quotes from a few people in a poorly framed Op-ed does not constitute a crisis or a threat to the republic. MTG is a loon. What you did is akin to someone quoting AOC and following up by saying "see...all democrats want socialism". Or quoting Omar and saying "see... people in Minnesota hate Jews" You're either being completely intellectually dishonest or willfully obtuse. You still won't address the fact that you're using Op-eds as a basis for your concerns that white christian nationalists are going to burn our country down. There's literally zero data that suggests that...only conjecture by politically motivated operators..err 'journalists'

[paulxu]

The students lost a good Legal mind. I may have disagreed with RBG but I would’ve listen to her speak and have been interested in her class.

This whole thing about contraception is dumb and isn’t going to happen. The Court could send homosexual marriage back to the States (per the Constitution) but I doubt it as this Court has said it won’t take up the case (I hope they don’t personally). The inter-racial red herring is so dumb you should be embarrassed.

Rights are not granted by the Court or removed either. That’s not how a Constitutional Republic with Democratically elected Representatives works at all.

I think he should have taught the class, and I'm sure the students would appreciate his insights on the constitution.
As to them saying they won't take up other cases....they weren't going to take up Roe either.
Here's Thomas on the other things he wants to revisit/over turn.

Justice Thomas wrote his own concurring opinion, arguing that since the court has overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, which was grounded in the 14th Amendment and the due process clause, other cases that have been rooted in the same right to privacy could all be reconsidered.

Those include:

The Griswold v. Connecticut case from 1965 that said states couldn’t bar married couples from making private decisions about birth control use.
The Lawrence v. Texas case from 2003 that said states couldn’t criminalize consensual sexual relations between same-sex partners.
The Obergefell v. Hodges case from 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage.

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas also wrote of the Dobbs case that “The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.”

Inter-racial marriage is grounded on the same legal theory as those cases. The fact that he leaves it out isn't a red herring. It's quite telling.

[paulxu]

Smails, I'm not saying White christian nationalists are going to burn our country down.
I'm saying they are a concern to me as I believe in the separation of church and state.
But it is quite a mainstream Republican deal now, coming more and more out from the shadows.
The GOP nominee for governor of PA uses the avowedly christian nationalist social site of Gab to push his campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ionalist-site/

[Strange Brew]

I think he should have taught the class, and I'm sure the students would appreciate his insights on the constitution.
As to them saying they won't take up other cases....they weren't going to take up Roe either.
Here's Thomas on the other things he wants to revisit/over turn.

Inter-racial marriage is grounded on the same legal theory as those cases. The fact that he leaves it out isn't a red herring. It's quite telling.

Thomas’ opinion is one of 9 and the court has no interest in those other cases. The opinions of those 9 do not remove or codify Rights. If you’re referencing the 5th, reread it. It does not apply to any of these cases. The best argument is the 9th or 14th but the 9th is answered by the 10th. So the 14th, not the 5th is a better discussion than privacy.

As to a Right to privacy, You currently don’t have it. Ask the Jan 6th protestors identified thru geo-location. That, may not pass a 5th challenge.

A Federal “law” does not codify a Right, only an Amendment does.

Who wrote this piece you quoted?

[Strange Brew]

Smails, I'm not saying White christian nationalists are going to burn our country down.
I'm saying they are a concern to me as I believe in the separation of church and state.
But it is quite a mainstream Republican deal now, coming more and more out from the shadows.
The GOP nominee for governor of PA uses the avowedly christian nationalist social site of Gab to push his campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ionalist-site/

Please point to where such a Separation exists in the Constitution. Is someone proposing a National religion? We have no national religion nor should we. Nor should we limit the expression of any religion. That, is what the 1st states clearly.

[XU_Lou]

Democrat NJ Councilwoman Accused of Hitting Cyclist and NOT Stopping: