A Clear and Present Danger

[hntnhole]

Well, some of these "justices"*  are old men now, and one or two will be buying the farm one of these days.

This Roberts court*  seems to like the notion that everybody should run out and buy guns of every kind and description ... 

I've heard it said that "the Lord works in mysterious ways" ......  

Just sayin ..... 

* small case wholly intentional

[onlyraw]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Well, some of these "justices"*  are old men now, and one or two will be buying the farm one of these days.

Unfortunately once Judge Jackson is sworn in - I fear we are stuck with this court for at least 10 years….. Thomas is only 74 and now that he has a conservative majority- I doubt he will retire any time soon if he will ever retire at all … I think we will have to learn to live with the “Thomas Court”

[BootmanLA]

On 6/25/2022 at 2:59 PM, onlyraw said:

Unfortunately once Judge Jackson is sworn in - I fear we are stuck with this court for at least 10 years….. Thomas is only 74 and now that he has a conservative majority- I doubt he will retire any time soon if he will ever retire at all … I think we will have to learn to live with the “Thomas Court”

Correct. Thomas is 74, Alito is 72, Roberts is 67, Kavanaugh is 57, Gorsuch is 54, Barrett is 50. Thomas could easily serve another 8 years, putting his retirement in the term of the president elected in 2028. The others could go longer, much longer, or much, much longer.

[hntnhole]

Well, Biden will be even older when he's sworn in to a second term (if he runs).  

So, for a thought-exercise:  Assuming Biden doesn't run, that would put Kamela Harris as the front-runner for the Democratic nominee.  I've noticed that since she became Veep, she has substantially muted her comments, but I well remember that she's got a heavy-duty tongue, and not afraid to unleash it.  

Remember:  The presidential primaries last time around were not kind to President Biden.  It was Jim Clybourne of SC who single-handedly gave the nomination to Biden because of his stature within the Southern States.  Those of us who supported the current Sec'y of Transportation knew - within a minute - that Biden would get the nomination, once Clybourne started to speak that night. 

So, if there's to be a fight in the next cycle, and I reckon there will be, if Kamela goes to bat against Cheeto-Head (may heaven forbid, since hopefully he'll be in the clink for good) or Death-Santis, or any of the other hatemongers, I wouldn't bet against her.

That lady has bigger balls than almost every one of us.  

[Guest]

On 5/12/2022 at 3:09 PM, BlackDude said:

I read the article. I found it to be yet another attempt to use black peoples struggle to advocate for rights of other groups. Especially when many of these  groups advocated for, celebrated and benefited from the Dread Scott decision and other like it. 

We wont even get started on the anti-black fear mongering and propoganda around Roe v. Wade.

I don’t get why groups can’t use their own arguments and agreements without always trying to make some comparison to what Black people have gone through. Well I do know why. But that’s another story. 

It's hard and sometimes impossible to really get what another man or group of people have gone through, or their struggles. But I feel that there is something to be said for using analogies for exactly that reason. 

If it works and helps to convince people to support equal rights and opportunities that's a good result.

Seeing as Black people are both in the US and here in Europe still discriminated against, I can imagine this analogy could feel frustrating, irritating and infuriating.  But I could be missing the point, being a white male and sometimes one only try to hear what someone else is saying, and listening to what your story is.

Equal rights an equal opportunities, protection from prosecution and fighting bias are universal themes and should be guaranteed to everyone regardless of age, sex, gender, sexuality or cultural or racial background because we didn't choose those and where - as someone once said - "gifts from god / the gods".

I think there also should be less freedom of religion or political persuasion, these as chosen characteristic should always play second single to anti-discrimination. In no small part to protect children growing up from being brainwashed by their surroundings...

[Guest]

I've asked this somewhere before recently, as I would like a Republican point of view on the matter:

What are your thoughts on the role of governments in protecting (or not) the right to have sex with someone of your own gender, and same-sex-relationships, if any?

Should these be protected or not, if so: how and preferably by Federal or by (your) State government?
If not, how do you feel about anti-sodomy laws when concerning homosexuality and (biblical/religious) groups that are against all gay sex and for instance favour conversion therapy where parents can send their young-adult or pubescent children to?

So anyone with a perspective from another political background is happily invited to respond (preferably in more than a one-liner... Feel free to try and convince me your point of view is better.) 😉

[BlackDude]

3 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

It's hard and sometimes impossible to really get what another man or group of people have gone through, or their struggles. But I feel that there is something to be said for using analogies for exactly that reason. 

If it works and helps to convince people to support equal rights and opportunities that's a good result.

Using others for your benefit is abuse at a minimum. And I could argue using the struggle of others to ecomincally benefit  and gain resources for another group is a form slavery.

 

People have gotten so use to using black people to further their agenda, they have now become entitled and even cavalier about it. When reality our experience is unique and their is no other experience comparable. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Using others for your benefit is abuse at a minimum. And I could argue using the struggle of others to ecomincally benefit  and gain resources for another group is a form slavery.

 

People have gotten so use to using black people to further their agenda, they have now become entitled and even cavalier about it. When reality our experience is unique and their is no other experience comparable. 

 

 

I hope you didn't think I was in favour of using any man (or woman) or using the factual struggle of any other to further whatever agenda. If that is what my contribution sounded like I have articulated myself very poorly indeed and I apologise. 

And thank you for pointing this out.
Somehow this reminds me of the great gay black writer who once said:

"The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim: 
he or she has become a threat."

And of course you are right that the Black experience is unique and possibly even different for a Black man in the US/North America versus one in Europe, South- or Middle America. The experience of the jewish, Roma and other peoples prosecuted bij the Nazi's differ from anyone else's and from each other's and so does the gay/lesbian experience differs from all of the above, for one thing by it being perceived as a 'life choice' and most of us growing up in families who differ from us in the aspect that sets us aside from the majority or people in positions. 
Also the experience of women who are used and subjected by male dominated society differs.

With the utmost respect for your feelings and point of vies, I hope you think it's OK to look at what all these kinds of oppression and discrimination have in common in the political fight to change all that; However different all our experiences are and may be.

 

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I've asked this somewhere before recently, as I would like a Republican point of view on the matter:

What are your thoughts on the role of governments in protecting (or not) the right to have sex with someone of your own gender, and same-sex-relationships, if any?

Should these be protected or not, if so: how and preferably by Federal or by (your) State government?
If not, how do you feel about anti-sodomy laws when concerning homosexuality and (biblical/religious) groups that are against all gay sex and for instance favour conversion therapy where parents can send their young-adult or pubescent children to?

So anyone with a perspective from another political background is happily invited to respond (preferably in more than a one-liner... Feel free to try and convince me your point of view is better.) 😉

You won't get a response from a Republican on this site (or many others) because they know there IS NO response that won't come across as patently false.

Gay Republicans always try making the point that the problem isn't that the right doesn't like gay people; they just don't like overtly gay, over-sexualized gay, openly gay, in-your-face gay people. In their view, we should all be contented with living mostly in the closet, escorting a lovely woman periodically to public events to quash rumors about being "that way", and confine our gayness to the (tastefully decorated and very bland) bedroom. And if we only did that, they say, all these problems would go away. After all, it works for the rich white Christian gays, so why wouldn't it work for everyone?

Failing that, they think we should let the states handle it - rather than give the federal government a fraction of an ounce of power, which Republicans hate. That's also why the gay GOP people tend to live in progressive areas, where they think that everyone has a responsive local or state government that will surely act to protect the rights of the individual.

It's complete bullshit, of course.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

You won't get a response from a Republican on this site

That is a shame, and then I just hope someone from that persuasion at least read my questions and thinks about them.

And I'd be happy if they asked me how I see personal responsibly for my own well-being and if I really thought a government should interfere in that. THESE kind of questions just might start  a dialogue.

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

On 6/29/2022 at 7:49 AM, BareLover666 said:

I've asked this somewhere before recently, as I would like a Republican point of view on the matter:

What are your thoughts on the role of governments in protecting (or not) the right to have sex with someone of your own gender, and same-sex-relationships, if any?

Should these be protected or not, if so: how and preferably by Federal or by (your) State government?
If not, how do you feel about anti-sodomy laws when concerning homosexuality and (biblical/religious) groups that are against all gay sex and for instance favour conversion therapy where parents can send their young-adult or pubescent children to?

So anyone with a perspective from another political background is happily invited to respond (preferably in more than a one-liner... Feel free to try and convince me your point of view is better.) 😉

I’m a card carrying Republican. I’m thrilled by Roe being overturned. I haven’t read the opinion, but from the news I’ve read, the opinion clearly stated that other opinions like same sex and Loving are not the same as Roe.

As far as children and conversion therapy, that is up to the parents. I have a strong belief that the government has no business in the bedroom and no business in the nursery either. 
For the record, I’m Pro-Life because I believe the fetus is a human life, thus afforded protection under the Constitution. I’m not particularly religious either, but am not an atheist either.
 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Jackruby

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jackruby said:

I’m a card carrying Republican. I’m thrilled by Roe being overturned. I haven’t read the opinion, but from the news I’ve read, the opinion clearly stated that other opinions like same sex and Loving are not the same as Roe.

As far as children and conversion therapy, that is up to the parents. I have a strong belief that the government has no business in the bedroom and no business in the nursery either. 
For the record, I’m Pro-Life because I believe the fetus is a human life, thus afforded protection under the Constitution. I’m not particularly religious either, but am not an atheist either.
 

 

people are worried because the basis for Roe, had je same judicial foundation as SCOTUS rulings that forbade anti-sodomy laws and opening up marriage for same-sex couples, and because Justice Thomas wrote in a separate text he thinks these might be overturned to.

My questions weren't so much about the ruling on abortion, but similar rulings that effect gay and bisuxal men and women.

So I gather, you wouldn't be in favour of that? 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Guest

[Close2MyBro]

1 hour ago, Jackruby said:

I’m a card carrying Republican. I’m thrilled by Roe being overturned. I haven’t read the opinion, but from the news I’ve read, the opinion clearly stated that other opinions like same sex and Loving are not the same as Roe.

 

If you would like to read the opinion, a link to the PDF can be found here: [think before following links] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jackruby said:

I’m a card carrying Republican. I’m thrilled by Roe being overturned. I haven’t read the opinion, but from the news I’ve read, the opinion clearly stated that other opinions like same sex and Loving are not the same as Roe.

As far as children and conversion therapy, that is up to the parents. I have a strong belief that the government has no business in the bedroom and no business in the nursery either. 
For the record, I’m Pro-Life because I believe the fetus is a human life, thus afforded protection under the Constitution. I’m not particularly religious either, but am not an atheist either.
 

 

[think before following links] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Page numbering starts again with each concurrent or opposing opinion, so anyone interested might use a search function for 'Thomas' to read what Justice Thomas actually wrote. Otherwise I would have gladly provide the page number.

[Guest]

I'm quoting Justice Thomas here:

"The Court today declines to disturb substantive due pro- cess jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9)."

(Emphasis added. And you're welcome).