A Clear and Present Danger

[iman2004]

On 5/13/2022 at 12:28 AM, hntnhole said:

Let's look on the bright side:  Maybe, after stripping women's rights, voting rights, codifying repressions against "the other", nullifying gay rights, to get us out of their country they'll give us - oh - Puerto Rico ???  Some other Caribbean island?  Maybe a South-Sea Island (other than Wake) ???  And we could make laws that Breeding each other is expressly required, enshrined in our new, gay Constitution !!!  Think of the talent we have to draw upon to design our new National Flag !!!  Imagine the uniforms the cops will be required to wear ... the mind boggles ..... 

most likely something half a metre above sea level that climate change will get to by 2050!

[Close2MyBro]

It's a shame to see how many people are afraid of free speech. It used to be that we fought for freedom of speech. Now we fight to silence those who disagree with us. Sounds like communist Russia to me. Back to the cold war we go.

[EricX]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

For once, I beg your pardon:  "shyness" has nothing to do with it.  It's nothing less that utter, total shame they're trying to gloss over.  Shame, into which muck these office-seekers have willingly leapt into, peddling every sort of lie, misinformation, ignorance of the Constitution, will hopefully be the pit of shit they drown in come November.

I suspect he meant sly, not shy. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

It's nothing less that utter, total shame they're trying to gloss over.  Shame, into which muck these office-seekers have willingly leapt into, peddling every sort of lie, misinformation, ignorance of the Constitution, will hopefully be the pit of shit they drown in come November.

Not shame. They are notoriously shameless. Marjorie Taylor Greene? That woman knows no shame. Mitch McConnell? Never heard of the word. (The man is one of my state's senators. That's my shame, and no, I've never voted for the son of a bitch.) No, the words you are looking for are cowardice, hypocrisy, and craven opportunism.

[ErosWired]

22 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

It's a shame to see how many people are afraid of free speech. It used to be that we fought for freedom of speech. Now we fight to silence those who disagree with us. Sounds like communist Russia to me. Back to the cold war we go.

It's a shame how many people don't understand what free speech is. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to spew sewage out of our mouths and call it speech. Freedom of speech isn't a right to sling libel, slander and defamation of character (there are quite sound laws against all of these things). Freedom of speech isn't an open invitation to incite riots, shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, or try to persuade your fellow citizens to pick up their rifles and follow you into the Capitol Building. Freedom of speech isn't license to use the public airwaves and mass media affecting millions to consciously stoke the fear, insecurity and paranoia of vulnerable people until it turns individuals into gun-wielding mass-murderers (201 in 2022 so far and counting. Thank you so much, Fucker Carlson / Fucks and Friends). It's not that these morons have made us want to silence those who disagree with us - they've made us unable to hear each other speaking over all their bellowing.

But your statement assumes that free speech ought to be unrestrained speech. It never has been in the United States. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution is not a blanket prohibition against the government restricting speech; there are a number of types of speech that have long been restricted, and those restrictions have been upheld by the Supreme Court over decades as Constitutional.

Check it out here at FindLaw: [think before following links] https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speech.html

[fskn]

@BBLincoln, thank you for your solidarity.

Growing up when I did (1980s) and where I did (Canada, still very British then), I was acutely aware of the rise of Thatcher and modern conservatism in the UK. Policies tried in the UK, such as handing revenue-generating public assets to the private sector (but holding back, or later being forced to take back, the money-losing parts), cutting investments in public health services and education, and recklessly cutting taxes below the cost of operating government, were repeated in Canada and also in the US.

As you say, it's essential for people to be conscious of what is at stake, and to vote.

@hntnhole, indeed. My use of the word "shy" was tongue-in-cheek. Although they have little to worry about because a near-majority of Americans share their views (and have always done so), Republicans are avoiding their party's thornier policies for fear of offending swing voters — "shame", as you say. I'd call it temporary shame.

The Republican Party favors a legislated nationwide abortion ban, and Mitch McConnell said as much the other day, but he also said to wait for the final court decision (and presumably, the midterm elections).

Similarly, a number of Republicans have, over the years, endorsed the "replacement theory" that motivated the attack in Buffalo. They now have to tone down their beliefs for a moment, until the Buffalo coverage dies down.

The senator who favors returning jurisdiction over interracial marriage to the states had to walk back his remarks, but hopefully no one is dumb enough to believe that his views — or the party's — have softened.

On a separate note, I am amazed that commentators on an Internet forum, who are presumably not even lawyers, would be so convinced that the pending Supreme Court opinion can only ever be applied to abortion, when legal scholars are debating the very point. As a non-lawyer myself, I'll choose to worry as long as people who know more about it than I do are worrying.

4 hours ago, Bymike said:

I like to swallow.

This is a great form of birth control and way to reduce unplanned pregnancies!

Because many Republican politicians oppose not only abortion but also birth control, let's hope they don't decide to make oral sex illegal again (it was part of sodomy laws) when they try to make birth control illegal.

Edited May 17, 2022 by fskn

[ErosWired]

10 minutes ago, fskn said:

let's hope they don't decide to make oral sex illegal again (it was part of sodomy laws) when they try to make birth control illegal.

On the contrary, let's hope they do try. Let's give them enough rope to hang themselves with. They'll reach, and reach, and in their zeal (because they're fucking zealots) they'll reach just that little bit too far, and pass a law with a poison pill in it that can't pass even this Supreme Court's Constitutional scrutiny, and the whole house of cards will collapse.

Go look at a grandfather clock. In its body is a pendulum. The pendulum is constantly swinging back and forth. It goes from one extreme to the other, but it always, always, comes back once it goes as far as it can go in one direction or the other. This pendulum is nowhere near the center. It may swing a bit farther yet. But it will swing back, because that's the way the Universe works.

Besides, I served my country in civilian uniform for 30 years. I have no intention of obeying absurd laws extremists try to force down my throat. It's remarkably easy to gum up a bureaucracy if you know how.

[BootmanLA]

On 5/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, TotalTop said:

Yeah it is a lot of fear mongering, theory, and some judge on the SCOTUS said that even if roe is overturned this will somehow not change or effect same sex marriage or LGB equality and rights at all, and I agree with you that the issue of abortion or roe being overturned by the SCOTUS is not comparable to the fight for civil rights and equal rights for black Americans.  Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood was a notorious racist who promoted abortion to decrease the number of black people in the USA. She was a eugenicist.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/

If you believe Justice Alito's commentary that this abortion opinion (draft) has no bearing on same sex marriage or sodomy laws, I have 50 acres of beautiful oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you. I promise you, the price is a steal.

Supreme Court opinions almost always contain language that say, in effect, "we aren't deciding THAT case today because it's not before us" but they do not mean "we'll rule differently in that other case." What they mean is, we couldn't get the votes in THIS case to make a sweeping, more inclusive proclamation like "There are no rights that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constiuttion" but don't worry, we'll be back to take care of those things as soon as things quiet down just a little bit and another case comes along.

Look at the Voting Rights Act as an example. They struck down the preclearance formulas contained in Section Four, on the grounds that those formulas were adopted in 1970 and no longer reflected the actual practices of the jurisdictions that the formula subjected to Section Five preclearance. Then they sat back, and a few years later ruled that a law that had discriminatory effects on a protected racial minority wasn't inherently suspect; you very nearly have to prove *intent to discriminate on the basis of race* in order to succeed with a Voting Rights Act challenge. So as long as the racists trying to violate the law are good enough at hiding their motivation, no matter how blatant the effects are, it's very hard to win the case. That's despite Congress making it clear that disparate racial IMPACT was just as much a violation as express racial INTENT.

That's how the Court works - it whittles away a principle, little by little, and then eventually it says, well, with all these things we've ruled since the original principle was set, obviously that principle doesn't hold any more, we made a mistake, and we overturn the principle. That's been the history of abortion laws for the last 20 years, almost always upholding increasingly severe restrictions.

Don't think it won't happen to sodomy or same-sex marriage. It will.

[BootmanLA]

23 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

It's a shame to see how many people are afraid of free speech. It used to be that we fought for freedom of speech. Now we fight to silence those who disagree with us. Sounds like communist Russia to me. Back to the cold war we go.

I can't tell how old you are from your profile or picture, but I don't think you're anywhere nearly old enough to remember the Cold War or what it was like, nor able to understand what it was like to be in the Soviet Union (not "Communist Russia", which isn't even a thing).

A little grumbling between people on a privately owned internet forum about what should or shouldn't be permitted is about as far removed from the "free speech" issues suffered in the USSR as the USSR physically is from, say, Antarctica.

[hntnhole]

Thank you, BootmanLA, for clearly, concisely and fairly describing the state of affairs in the US now.  There is every reason to be suspicious of the current SCOTUS, and no reason whatsoever not to be.  Mr. Alito is obviously the shiniest object in a dark, misogynistic, smallish club, but hardly alone in his scorn for any actions of that court in the last 50 or so years.  It simply astounds me that people of this ilk get confirmed over and over and over again.  

I would only add that, in addition to his parcel of ocean-front property in Iowa, I happen to own a bridge over to Brooklyn, which is also for sale - proceeds donated to BZ !!!

[hntnhole]

7 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I don't think you're anywhere nearly old enough to remember the Cold War or what it was like, nor able to understand what it was like to be in the Soviet Union (not "Communist Russia", which isn't even a thing).

One of the manifold problems we're facing these days, is the lack of observational/critical thinking being taught in public schools.  Maybe Close-to-my-bro has not had the opportunity to learn what actual history has to teach us.  Maybe he didn't have the opportunity to broaden his capacities.  That is the case with millions now, it seems.  

--------------- shucks - buddy just texted ---------- gotta run ---------- 

Thanks, BMLA, for your clearly well-thought-out reply .......

[holeswideopen]

23 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

If you believe Justice Alito's commentary that this abortion opinion (draft) has no bearing on same sex marriage or sodomy laws, I have 50 acres of beautiful oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you. I promise you, the price is a steal.

Supreme Court opinions almost always contain language that say, in effect, "we aren't deciding THAT case today because it's not before us" but they do not mean "we'll rule differently in that other case." What they mean is, we couldn't get the votes in THIS case to make a sweeping, more inclusive proclamation like "There are no rights that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constiuttion" but don't worry, we'll be back to take care of those things as soon as things quiet down just a little bit and another case comes along.

Look at the Voting Rights Act as an example. They struck down the preclearance formulas contained in Section Four, on the grounds that those formulas were adopted in 1970 and no longer reflected the actual practices of the jurisdictions that the formula subjected to Section Five preclearance. Then they sat back, and a few years later ruled that a law that had discriminatory effects on a protected racial minority wasn't inherently suspect; you very nearly have to prove *intent to discriminate on the basis of race* in order to succeed with a Voting Rights Act challenge. So as long as the racists trying to violate the law are good enough at hiding their motivation, no matter how blatant the effects are, it's very hard to win the case. That's despite Congress making it clear that disparate racial IMPACT was just as much a violation as express racial INTENT.

That's how the Court works - it whittles away a principle, little by little, and then eventually it says, well, with all these things we've ruled since the original principle was set, obviously that principle doesn't hold any more, we made a mistake, and we overturn the principle. That's been the history of abortion laws for the last 20 years, almost always upholding increasingly severe restrictions.

Don't think it won't happen to sodomy or same-sex marriage. It will.

Reading this conversation, I realize I know almost nothing about the history of abortion. So, I read up on it, most notably reading an article from a 1997 edition of the The Atlantic, which had the following interesting passages:

 

Until the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy).

 

The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism. Immigration, especially by Catholics and nonwhites, was increasing, while birth rates among white native-born Protestants were declining. (Unlike the typical abortion patient of today, that of the nineteenth century was a middle- or upper-class white married woman.) 

 

Nonetheless, having achieved their legal goal, many doctors—including prominent members of the AMA—went right on providing abortions. Some late-nineteenth-century observers estimated that two million were performed annually (which would mean that in Victorian America the number of abortions per capita was seven or eight times as high as it is today).

 

The conventional wisdom today considers Roe v. Wade to be an avant-garde decision, "judicial activism" at either its enlightened best or its high-handed worst. Reagan places the decision in its historical context, showing that it was a logical response to the times.Far from foisting a radical departure on an unready nation, the Supreme Court was responding to a decade-long buildup of popular sentiment for change. The movement was spearheaded by doctors who saw firsthand the carnage created by illegal abortion (more than 5,000 deaths a year, mostly of black and Hispanic women), and whose hands were now firmly tied by the hospital committees they themselves had created. They were joined by civil-liberties lawyers, who brought to their briefs a keen understanding of criminalization's discriminatory effects; and by grassroots activists in the reborn women's movement.

 

[think before following links] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/

 

While I recommend the entire article, the summary is a chilling echo of the debate we’re living through. A relatively small, homogeneous minority is trying to dictate policy for advantage, power and control. As others here have said, it’s so important to vote and for people who are willing and enthusiastic about our goals (barebacking included) as we are a minority and just as at risk as women are with the possible Roe decision. Worse, we don’t have varied interests willing to rush to our defense.

[fskn]

And here it is, folks, the concurring opinion of the longest-serving Supreme Court justice (who also happens to be African American, which is neither here nor there, but is interesting to note, in that race and progressiveness are totally unrelated):

"The same rationale that the Supreme Court used to declare there was no right to abortion, [Clarence Thomas] said, should also be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations and same-sex marriage."

Source: [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html

To understand why Thomas' opinion matters, it's important to realize that, even though Roberts still holds the title of Chief Justice, Thomas has the right to assign opinions. He is the senior member of the court's conservative majority.

Source: [think before following links] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/21/opinions/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-power-toobin/index.html

I actually like to be proved wrong in spirited, substantive debate. On this issue, I would have been relieved to be wrong. But the people who said there was nothing to worry about never offered any substantive evidence to support their position, and it is now clear that they were mistaken.

Within a matter of years, your same-sex marriages will be invalidated, it will again be illegal for you to engage in gay sex, you won't be allowed to get condoms even if you want them (yes, this is a bareback enthusiast site and primarily one for people who are not physically able to have children, but the thought that access to contraceptives will once again be restricted is chilling), and who knows what other hard-won, long-fought-for rights and freedoms will be abrogated?

Please, please exercise your right to vote in the 2022 midterm elections...

[hntnhole]

First, glad to see you're back, my friend.  Hopefully you were on vaca somewhere nice and summery !!!  A gay nude beach with plenty of seaside bushes somewhere comes to mind ... 

Now.  I thought it would take longer than just under 2 months (since the original post), but it hasn't.  These hatemongers are on the march, there are millions of them, and the SCOTUS has just proven how determined these so-called "conservatives" are to preserve, protect, and defend the depravities they are so consumed by.  Mr. Thomas, with his swollen false pride completely overtaking his twisted foul mind, has directly referenced US now.  Do these "conservatives" think people will stop fucking?  Who will raise all the babies forced into this maelstrom of the DisUnited States?  Who will feed them?  Who will care for them, when the rich, pale and powerful care only for their own miseries?  These so-called conservatives are interested in conserving one thing, and one thing only: their institutionalized hatreds of 'the other', and history is littered with their despicable acts.  

These conservatives are all about increasing the Caucasian population, and diminishing every other group's presence in the United States.  They think that this will eventually keep them (and their U.T.'s)* in power, and thus preserve and deepen their hatreds of anyone who doesn't measure down to their cultural depths.  They will stop at nothing to accomplish this, and today was their first salvo in the coming struggles.  They claim to value human life (which begins, they say, at the moment the breeding takes place), but the value only their positions of privilege.  They couldn't care less how many "lesser" folks get mown down by weapons of war.  They pervert the second amendment into an enabling artifice to kill those of us that don't live in their ivory towers.  

These people have also perverted the Universal Message of the one they claim to follow. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, heal the sick.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Period.  The rest is cultural garbage and inserted into ancient texts to support the advent of "New Covenant", subsequently rearranged to support the political agenda of the day.  Do the research for yourself.  

Picking one shred of a quote out of the history of the ancient Hebrew people is all they need to grasp at**, and feel justified in our destruction.  These are not people of intellect, these are people dedicated to perpetuating cultural hatreds.  This is the historical curse of mankind since we crawled out of the caves.  The odds are against us, but it is not impossible that we can defeat these dark forces.  

Take a stand, take action, join progressive groups, resist the tide of hatred.  If not for others, then for yourself.  We are under serious threat, and if we pull the ostrich routine, our heads will be under the sands of time when the last chance to save our Nation has already passed.  Get involved.  Take action.  Keep fighting.  Never give up.

Now is the time to join hands with decent people, and do what we can to beat back these hatemongering cretins.  NOW.  

 

*I can't bring myself to actually type it, but some of you will figure it out.

** the same, tired old phrase sourced in Leviticus

[BootmanLA]

I'm as horrified (though not surprised) as anyone by today's opinion. But a couple of points:

Yes, Thomas is the senior-most judge, and as such, IF he is in the majority AND the Chief Justice is not, THEN he gets to choose who writes an opinion. Don't assume that the Chief Justice will be on opposite sides from Thomas in any particular future case (if they're on the same side, the chief gets to assign).

Second, even if Thomas assigns the opinion and writes it himself, he's got to get four other justices to concur in the actual opinion, or else it's not by itself the opinion of the Court. It's complex, but here's an example.

Let's say that five justices did vote to overturn Obergefell v Hodges (same sex marriage). Thomas might write an opinion that struck down that right (on which the five justices agreed). But then Thomas writes a lengthy screed with a section saying states have no right to even permit same-sex marriage. If any one of the five objects to that viewpoint, he or she can withhold approval of that section - meaning that section is not binding. In that case, while states could ban same-sex marriage, the part of Thomas's opinion that said "States cannot approve of this" would be, essentially, just his own mini-rant, no more binding than a dissent would be.

In some cases, the rulings are so complex that in the end, no five justices agree on anything except the result in the particular case in question - which may mean any other case where the facts are not identical might not turn out the same way.

I know that seems like small comfort, and it is only that - but the particular fact of Thomas's seniority isn't meaningful unless and until he and Roberts are on opposite sides and Roberts' side loses.