Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[hntnhole]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Actually, the largest Protestant denomination

Your point is well taken.  As to the others (Protestant - i.e. Luther derived), the method of teaching racism was less overt, and thus more insidious.  "They" (meaning P.O.C.) simply weren't mentioned.  The R.C's were heavily denigrated in the most overt fashion (after all - they worship statues - which I was quite literally taught as a little kid in Sunday School), they don't have to be sorry for their sins, because they only have to pay money and count beads, and then they can go do whatever it was all over again. This, when we were taught that every single little thing we ever, ever did wrong was written down in some impossibly enormous book in the sky, and we would have to answer for every single entry under our individual name. I clearly remember someone asking something in Sunday School - can't recall just what - about the people on the other side of the river dividing the city I grew up in - and the answer came that "they stay over there, we stay over here on our side".  This shit was literally taught to little kids.  So, generations upon generations of mostly Northern-European-derived Americans were inculcated with the notion that "the other" simply was not relevant to "our" lives.  We wind up therefore, with Caucasians today who can actually say shit like "I didn't own any slaves - it's not my fault".  And this was in the second-largest metro area outside of Chicago.

With this kind of nurturing of kids, it's hardly a wonder that we find ourselves where we are these days. 

[tallslenderguy]

15 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

What sources / authors would you recommend? 

 

You may want to check out Ground News , they provide several sources for the same story and measure things like factuality and bias. 

[tallslenderguy]

There is a real and powerful religious force in the USA, with a decided political presence and agenda. It doesn't take a historian to realize the number of times the notion "it will never happen here" has been proved wrong for a country.

 i was arrested in 1999 by a cop pretending to be gay and pretending to cruise in a known gay park. i was charged with a felony using a 100 year old sodomy law for asking him if he wanted to fuck. The only thing that saved me was a judge who was liberal. The judge could just as easily been conservative and sided with McDonell's anti gay beliefs. Anyone who believes the US justice system is 'blind' and free of bias is woefully ignorant.  The "justice system" is how law is interpreted, and RvW is a perfect example of how interpretation can go from one side to the opposite in a heartbeat, depending on who sits on the bench. Bob McDonnell was the AG in Virginia at the time i was arrested. McDonell identified as a conservative Christian and he went after gays with a vengeance... he later became governor of Virginia. He was very open about his agenda. McDonell's masters thesis (from religiously conservative Regents University) lays out his views:

"...the entire treatise outlines a Christian Reconstructionist’s version of a biblical worldview as it relates to the relationship between family, church, and civil government, and outlines proposals to privilege that social ordering with taxes and policies. McDonnell sets out the jurisdictional view of authority promoted by Reconstructionists with which RD readers will be familiar: the “God-ordained institutions,” of the civil government (citing Genesis 9-11), the church (citing Matthew 16), and the family (citing Genesis 2)."

[think before following links] https://religiondispatches.org/bob-mcdonnells-christian-reconstructionist-thesis/

And now we have a purposely stacked supreme court. 

"U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state

In three decisions in the past eight weeks, the court has ruled against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on governmental endorsement of religion - known as the "establishment clause."

[think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-aim-separation-church-state-2022-06-28/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

[Guest]

8 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

There is a real and powerful religious force in the USA, with a decided political presence and agenda. It doesn't take a historian to realize the number of times the notion "it will never happen here" has been proved wrong for a country.

 i was arrested in 1999 by a cop pretending to be gay and pretending to cruise in a known gay park. i was charged with a felony using a 100 year old sodomy law for asking him if he wanted to fuck. The only thing that saved me was a judge who was liberal. The judge could just as easily been conservative and sided with McDonell's anti gay beliefs. Anyone who believes the US justice system is 'blind' and free of bias is woefully ignorant.  The "justice system" is how law is interpreted, and RvW is a perfect example of how interpretation can go from one side to the opposite in a heartbeat, depending on who sits on the bench. Bob McDonnell was the AG in Virginia at the time i was arrested. McDonell identified as a conservative Christian and he went after gays with a vengeance... he later became governor of Virginia. He was very open about his agenda. McDonell's masters thesis (from religiously conservative Regents University) lays out his views:

"...the entire treatise outlines a Christian Reconstructionist’s version of a biblical worldview as it relates to the relationship between family, church, and civil government, and outlines proposals to privilege that social ordering with taxes and policies. McDonnell sets out the jurisdictional view of authority promoted by Reconstructionists with which RD readers will be familiar: the “God-ordained institutions,” of the civil government (citing Genesis 9-11), the church (citing Matthew 16), and the family (citing Genesis 2)."

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://religiondispatches.org/bob-mcdonnells-christian-reconstructionist-thesis/

And now we have a purposely stacked supreme court. 

"U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state

In three decisions in the past eight weeks, the court has ruled against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on governmental endorsement of religion - known as the "establishment clause."

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-aim-separation-church-state-2022-06-28/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

Sometimes I wonder if politicians like this McDonell and Justice Thomas are closet homosexuals themselves, coming down on the rest of us to hide their true feelings.
Perhaps even from frustration because they don't get any (judging by the looks of the latter I would need a VERY stiff drink and then sum and then it would still be a no thank you. 🤓

Happy and secure men - or women for that matter - in my experience don't feel the need to trash or limit other people.

[hntnhole]

28 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Happy and secure men - or women for that matter - in my experience don't feel the need to trash or limit other people.

I think this ^ statement gets to the crux of the issue.  To less secure-minded folks, the world seems to be careening out of control: Russia on the march, financial instabilities, commodity scarceness, unreliable trade agreements, governments struggling to stem the tide, often seemingly unable to deal with important issues, on and on.  This has been increasingly clear for several years now, and only becoming more obvious. 

More emotionally secure folks are concerned, but not losing their ability to keep the unsettled in it's proper perspective.  There is hope that people of good will can right the ship in more self-confident men and women.  When an era of disruption of what's been the norm seems imminent, insecure folks tend to lash out at anything around them, without considering the negative value of their actions.  Without a firm belief-system (I mean, personal - not institutional) of hope, enlightenment to hang on to, some folks simply succumb to a sense of ennui - which is when the real despots can take advantage and create genuine havoc.  

But there's always hope too.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Without a firm belief-system (I mean, personal - not institutional) of hope, enlightenment to hang on to, some folks simply succumb to a sense of ennui - which is when the real despots can take advantage and create genuine havoc.  

something like that mostly works best when believing in oneself, imo and experience. and it's not about thinking one knows everything or not doubting.

people who don't doubt, don't think. 

[hntnhole]

2 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

it's not about thinking one knows everything or not doubting.

All I know is, no one knows everything, and everyone needs to keep learning new ways of thinking, new points of view.  It's empowering to know that no one knows everything, and thus, everything is always up for reflection and new potential answers.  If we stop doubting, we only get encrusted with old notions.  Learning new perspectives is healthy, uplifting, even exciting sometimes.  

I write on a political blog, and find new perspectives all the time.  Each deserves consideration, some are bs, but some are well thought out.  Getting stuck in some intellectual rut only diminishes us.  

Cheers !!!

[Close2MyBro]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:59 PM, drscorpio said:

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett who were all nominated by the last President were all asked under oath by the Senate their position on Roe v Wade. They all stated unequivocally that it was settled law and not up for reconsideration. There was nothing new in the case that was just decided that warranted overturning a 50-year-old precedent. They simply lied under oath, and are guilty of perjury. 

In all fairness, the case we are talking about, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization was not filed with the Supreme Court until June 15, 2020, and not heard by the Supreme Court until December 1, 2021. Justice Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were already seated  on the Supreme Court before the matter was even filed with the Court, thus this matter had not come up for reconsideration at all. Since there were no arguments before the court until December 2021, this also means that the matter had not come before Comey-Barrett for reconsideration either.

For any politician to claim that defying the existing justice structure, such as Maxine Waters did just a few days ago, should worry every American. If you have politicians who openly encourage defying the structure (instead of changing it) is a corrupt politician. We have excellent examples of this behavior by looking at Mexico, Venezeuela and Cuba. This is only the start of our decline as a nation.

[tallslenderguy]

31 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

something like that mostly works best when believing in oneself, imo and experience. and it's not about thinking one knows everything or not doubting.

people who don't doubt, don't think. 

i sooooooo agree with this.

i believe the foundation of fundamentalist mind set is a desire for absolute knowledge, and i do not think one has to be religious to have that mindset. Psychologically, i think those who want or think they have absolute knowledge, associate that with security. i do think it's easier to accommodate the mindset in a relgious setting though. When one crosses the line from belief to absolute knowledge, they can make that knowledge into authority that they can then justify applying universally. To jump it up a few notches, some  abrogate themselves of responsibility attributing their beliefs and notions to an authority or creator.  i think many of these people are absolutely sincere and convinced they  are doing "Gods" bidding because they don't just believe in "God," they know "God."  

i think "God" is the ultimate ethnocentricity. 

[drscorpio]

4 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

In all fairness, the case we are talking about, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization was not filed with the Supreme Court until June 15, 2020, and not heard by the Supreme Court until December 1, 2021. Justice Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were already seated  on the Supreme Court before the matter was even filed with the Court, thus this matter had not come up for reconsideration at all. Since there were no arguments before the court until December 2021, this also means that the matter had not come before Comey-Barrett for reconsideration either.

For any politician to claim that defying the existing justice structure, such as Maxine Waters did just a few days ago, should worry every American. If you have politicians who openly encourage defying the structure (instead of changing it) is a corrupt politician. We have excellent examples of this behavior by looking at Mexico, Venezeuela and Cuba. This is only the start of our decline as a nation.

I am not muddying the water with discussing Maxine Waters. She likes to grandstand, and that has nothing to do with this discussion. 

The entirety of the case in Dobbs v Jackson was Roe and Casey were decided incorrectly. No new information was used to justify the reasoning other than the basis by which these decisions were reached was flawed. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett stated unequivocally in their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law that should not be reconsidered. Then they turned around in less than 4 years and voted to overturn the decision. Under the principle of stare decisis, precedents should be honored UNLESS some significant development as occurred. 

[Close2MyBro]

1 minute ago, drscorpio said:

I am not muddying the water with discussing Maxine Waters. She likes to grandstand, and that has nothing to do with this discussion. 

The entirety of the case in Dobbs v Jackson was Roe and Casey were decided incorrectly. No new information was used to justify the reasoning other than the basis by which these decisions were reached was flawed. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett stated unequivocally in their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law that should not be reconsidered. Then they turned around in less than 4 years and voted to overturn the decision. Under the principle of stare decisis, precedents should be honored UNLESS some significant development as occurred. 

Placing the right to decide the abortion matters back in the hands of the individual states is an incorrect decision? It would seem to me that allowing each individual state and its residents to decide the laws governing their state should be a right that all states and their citizens should want. Don't get me wrong, I support legalized abortion, but not to use it as a political tool, as it has been from the start. Had the Democrats really wanted to end the issue once and for all, they would have made it law when the Obama administration has a super-majority and it could have passed and been signed into law and the whole discussion would have ended there. They chose not to, because campaigning on any change in abortion law has always been a great fundraiser, and the last thing you want to do is fix the problem and put an end to the fundraising it drives. There are numerous political issues that never get solved for this same reason - they are just too profitable politically to finally put to rest.

[drscorpio]

The Democrats under Obama had a super majority for a couple of months before Ted Kennedy became too ill to carry on and subsequently died. After that point, they did not have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and McConnell famously stated his aim to insure nothing POTUS wanted would get passed. 

Should the Democrats have passed laws to protect abortion rights at some point during the 50 years Roe was in force? Probably. But as we discussed before, it was considered settled case law. 

Part of what SCOTUS is supposed to do is make unifying decisions for the country when law differs from state to state in a way that is disruptive. I do think we were better off with Roe in place. 

[Close2MyBro]

11 minutes ago, drscorpio said:

The Democrats under Obama had a super majority for a couple of months before Ted Kennedy became too ill to carry on and subsequently died. After that point, they did not have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and McConnell famously stated his aim to insure nothing POTUS wanted would get passed. 

Should the Democrats have passed laws to protect abortion rights at some point during the 50 years Roe was in force? Probably. But as we discussed before, it was considered settled case law. 

Part of what SCOTUS is supposed to do is make unifying decisions for the country when law differs from state to state in a way that is disruptive. I do think we were better off with Roe in place. 

Their super majority returned when Paul Kirk was sworn in as Kennedy's replacement a month later. If this had been such a hot button issue to put to bed "once and for all", then congress would have acted, but they chose not to.

[Guest]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:09 PM, NEDenver said:

No, but Roe ending was pretty obvious once Ginsberg died.  Republicans keep talking about how much they hate gay marriage, and how much they resent losing sodomy laws.  When someone tells you their life goals, believe them.  I’m in a safe enough state, although we’re thinking of relocating to Washington State or Portland just to be a bit safer (and closer to Canada.)

I think the treatment that the log cabin morons got first at CPAC and then in Texas last weekend should make it clear that the party doesn’t think they belong, and probably don’t have any rights.  If I were in Texas I’d be deciding on whether you need an exit plan after November.  

As soon as you name call you lose your argument. 

[Guest]

On 6/25/2022 at 7:22 PM, tighthole64 said:

Interesting as he's in an interracial marriage!

Loving was more about equal protection.