Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Supreme Court Ruling time again

pretty sure texas enacted this very recently but cant be arsed to google

they past laws for it mean anyone involved within the act of assisting or preforming a abortion could be charged
even if it was just giving a lift


even tried to set up a snitch hotline until the internet found the number

wankers
 
7ts9loa21q791.jpg


:mad:
 
I'll be reading the Bruen decision tomorrow but before I do I wanted to take issue with a few things that were said earlier in the thread.
The aim of the Constitution when written was to protect the citizens from Government overreach. The constitution was written to limit the power of the government over its citizens, not to grant the citizens their rights.
If you insist on applying a historical lens to your analysis of the US Constitution you're adopting the originalist position beloved by conservatives. Other ways of interpreting the constitution are available, and they would result in a different result in the Bruen case.

I'm also curious about your reliance on 'the aims of the Constitution when written'. Should they be static aims? They were undoubtedly a reflection of the dominance of wealthy white men over American society, and as such couldn't it be said that there's an argument for not adhering to the original aims of the Constitution in a modern democracy?
I'm sure I could come up with many more and better examples of restrictions on an individuals Constitutional rights if I had time, but my point is, you can't just apply restrictions on rights you don't agree with, it is the thin end of the wedge. If you allow your government to restrict some rights without complaining they will end up restricting all your rights.

I'm not a gun rights activist and opposed Bolsonaro new gun laws here in Brazil, I'm just pointing out that as a matter of law the Supreme Court were right in this case. If you allow your government to whittle away the rights you don't agree with they will for sure at some point do the same to rights you agree with.
But individual Constitutional rights are restricted all the time. The meaning of most of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are heavily contested, and views on what can and can't be done to abridge those rights have varied over time. Freedom of speech looks very different in 2022 to how it looked in 1800. As does the right to protection from unlawful searches and seizures.

Also, thin end of the wedge arguments are crap. There is a sensible middle ground that can be reached where individuals have the freedom to speak freely in public, but not the freedom to carry a concealed pistol. In fact, such a middle ground existed in the state of New York as recently as last week. In addition, the Act which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional had been on the books there since 1911. In the 111 years since then, how far up the wedge have we travelled from the thin end that you speak of? If it's not very far, and people in New York enjoy the same rights as people in other states do on matters unrelated to gun control, then isn't it possible that your argument isn't any more than a weak appeal to emotion?
 
If you look at the video in context, nowhere in it do they say they personally support Roe v. Wade. Just that it's an established precedent, which it was. It's all weasel words, but I don't think it technically ads up to perjury. However, I believe anyone who believed their testimony is a fool.
Nobody voting for their appointment "believed" their testimony. Their comments were window dressing.
 
If you leave your state to try to get a safe and legal abortion in a state where it is still permitted, your location data could be used against you. For the past decade we have been sleepwalking into a new era of digital authoritarianism. Now we are in the middle of a nightmare.

They can only track you if you are using your phone.
Stop using your phone!!!!

(source of quote - archive.ph]
 
A crumbling Empire with no Coliseums or real life Gladiators'.

Watching the protests and reporting from there in the US getting some nuggets of information/insight into just how much the $ystem is now being ripped up and exposed. I know it is a longish video at 23 mins.



The crowd sound really upset and like a powder keg.
 
They can only track you if you are using your phone.
Stop using your phone!!!!

(source of quote - archive.ph]
And start using cash as everyone knows that debit and credit cards leave a lovely trail of breadcrumbs for even the callowest investigator to follow. Plus use burner phones and secure email eg protonmail to arrange appointments, so as not to leave a comms trail
 
Senator John Cornyn, posted this to twitter in response to a tweet by former President Obama yesterday:

Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. https://t.co/hrUYCcIq8Y

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 25, 2022


Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board are decisions that guarantee equal access to education for minorities. They're really saying the quiet part out loud now. We need to stop thinking that they're just blowing off steam or misspeaking. Stop with the "let's all talk and be friends" bullshit. They have declared war on us. We should recognize it for what it is and deal with it with the seriousness it deserves.
 
Last edited:
I'll be reading the Bruen decision tomorrow but before I do I wanted to take issue with a few things that were said earlier in the thread.

If you insist on applying a historical lens to your analysis of the US Constitution you're adopting the originalist position beloved by conservatives. Other ways of interpreting the constitution are available, and they would result in a different result in the Bruen case.

I'm also curious about your reliance on 'the aims of the Constitution when written'. Should they be static aims? They were undoubtedly a reflection of the dominance of wealthy white men over American society, and as such couldn't it be said that there's an argument for not adhering to the original aims of the Constitution in a modern democracy?

But individual Constitutional rights are restricted all the time. The meaning of most of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are heavily contested, and views on what can and can't be done to abridge those rights have varied over time. Freedom of speech looks very different in 2022 to how it looked in 1800. As does the right to protection from unlawful searches and seizures.

Also, thin end of the wedge arguments are crap. There is a sensible middle ground that can be reached where individuals have the freedom to speak freely in public, but not the freedom to carry a concealed pistol. In fact, such a middle ground existed in the state of New York as recently as last week. In addition, the Act which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional had been on the books there since 1911. In the 111 years since then, how far up the wedge have we travelled from the thin end that you speak of? If it's not very far, and people in New York enjoy the same rights as people in other states do on matters unrelated to gun control, then isn't it possible that your argument isn't any more than a weak appeal to emotion?
You're quite right to critique 1%er's nonsense, but only an idiot looks at this through the lens of contrived jurisprudence in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom