Sign in to follow this  
The Joker

Amy Coney Barrett Let the Knives and Shields come out

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, bridhb said:

You must not live in the USA.  Please don't wish that on the majority that voted against Trump  and probably will again even if he somehow squeaks through the EC or is successful with his plans to cheat.    And "more winning" with an even further unleashed and falsely validated Trump could be very bad for the rest of the world....he has nukes.

It's only when those that continue to hit their thumb with a hammer realise it's their hand on the Hamner  and their thumb, and that  it actually fucking hurts, does real behaviour change occur....

Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

Dark considerations of a women of faith and integrity.......

With or without a loyalty pledge to Trump.....Will she put personal faith and beliefs aside and be impartial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sidecar said:

With or without a loyalty pledge to Trump.....Will she put personal faith and beliefs aside and be impartial?

I would think her faith would demand that she adhere to the written word of the constitution as that is her job description if she is appointed. Is that a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, warbird said:

I would think her faith would demand that she adhere to the written word of the constitution as that is her job description if she is appointed. Is that a problem?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
34 minutes ago, warbird said:

I would think her faith would demand that she adhere to the written word of the constitution as that is her job description if she is appointed. Is that a problem?

 

There's a whole other level of reality operating here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

I would think her faith would demand that she adhere to the written word of the constitution as that is her job description if she is appointed. Is that a problem?

Nonono, not at all.

Mixing religion and justice together is going to be fucking hysterical. 

From afar.

I'd be lining up another 10 Scotus' and be expanding the panel, dilute the crazies' potential for impact.

Not like you'll have a supply shortage of work for them for the next few years. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

i hope she gets in, and for good measure, i hope trump gets reelected with a compliant senate.

 

trump's supporters need more of this winning. its the only way they will learn.

No.  They still wouldn't learn.  Too fucking stubborn.  Look at Dog, Bravo, Warbird... 

Meanwhile, the rest of us didn't do anything to deserve it.  Collective punishment is against the Geneva conventions... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, warbird said:

Seriously, you need an ultrasound (essentially) to board an airplane.

When did your education stop? Were your parents aware of this?

EXPERT TIP: If anyone offers to stick something up your ass at the airport, they are probably not acting in an official capacity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Seriously, is that your response? 

They'll be banning amniocenteses next. 

Uh...you know some Forced Birthers in the U.S. have, in the past, spoken against amniocentesis? I think it was SO STUPID that they stopped.

But the rationale was:

1) There is a non-zero risk to the fetus in doing it.

2) The primary reason to do it was to assess fetal genetic health and possible fatal or severe birth defects. This might lead to abortion if birth defects were found.

3) Also there was fear people would use it for sex selection.

Since the amniocentesis was being done primarily to determine if a pregnancy should be allowed to proceed (or to see if the mom needs high risk prenatal care...but they don't give a shit about moms) it should be disallowed.

This was a while ago, I think in the 80s or something. I have heard these arguments from forced-birthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

So forcing women to undergo a medical procedure is ok with you?

A procedure of no medical benefit to the mother.

Jelly on the Belly is not a "Medical Procedure":lol:

1) It is, and it's arguably pretty invasive.

2) It's not nearly as invasive as a trans-vaginal ultrasound, which has ZERO medical necessity prior to abortion and requires vaginal penetration.

Trans-vaginal ultrasound is a favorite of right-wing politicians because it IS so invasive, it's basically state-mandated rape a woman must submit to if a woman wants to get an abortion in some states.

Your ignorance sometimes is surpassed for your callous lack of empathy. It's really quite amazing what as asshole you can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

To step back, the stated purpose of the ultrasound laws is to give a woman information about her pregnancy that might persuade her to opt against having an abortion.

This bullshit is also critiqued, it's the obvious ploy. They can achieve that end without a rapey trans-vaginal, but honestly convincing a woman to keep a baby is none of the state's goddamned business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, warbird said:

Not really.  The 2016 senate decided not to have a hearing knowing what the outcome was a foregone conclusion.  Obama did not rescind the nomination and put forth a candidate palatable to the senate.  2020, the Senate seems to have received a palatable nomination from the Executive:D

We're going to need a trans-anal ultrasound to see where you got THAT information from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warbird said:

I would think her faith would demand that she adhere to the written word of the constitution as that is her job description if she is appointed. Is that a problem?

Why on earth would her faith demand such a thing?

I have ZERO assurances that any religious fundamentalist who has said ‘legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of God’  is not to be trusted.

The right says this is a normal Catholic thing...I was raised Catholic. This is not something we were taught as a life goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

i hope she gets in, and for good measure, i hope trump gets reelected with a compliant senate.

 

trump's supporters need more of this winning. its the only way they will learn.

No.  They still wouldn't learn.  Too fucking stubborn.  Look at Dog, Bravo, Warbird... 

Meanwhile, the rest of us didn't do anything to deserve it.  Collective punishment is against the Geneva conventions... 

This.

MOST Americans did not want Trump and did not vote for him. We got screwed on a technicality, and so did the rest of the world.

More today don't want him after almost four years of his bullshit.

Let the assholes rot, we need to fix things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

This bullshit is also critiqued, it's the obvious ploy. They can achieve that end without a rapey trans-vaginal, but honestly convincing a woman to keep a baby is none of the state's goddamned business.

woah..do you mind quoting the source..that was me quoting another source.

and still warped bird says nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:
16 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

This bullshit is also critiqued, it's the obvious ploy. They can achieve that end without a rapey trans-vaginal, but honestly convincing a woman to keep a baby is none of the state's goddamned business.

woah..do you mind quoting the source..that was me quoting another source.

and still warped bird says nothing 

Which source of what? I've been seeing that critique of forced ultrasounds for a long time from a variety of places, from Planned Parenthood (which I follow on various social media and have donated money too and been on the mailing list for) to other similar women's rights action groups.

It's not a secret that the reason for showing the ultrasound is to try to bond the mother with the infant and convince her not to terminate the pregnancy. There is literally only two reasons for it, it's medically unnecessary. Ditto for waiting periods. The other reason is to just throw up more roadblocks and hurdles.

https://time.com/469/will-looking-at-an-ultrasound-before-an-abortion-change-your-mind/

Also, it largely doesn't work.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2014/01000/Relationship_Between_Ultrasound_Viewing_and.13.aspx

The Satanic Temple sued to block the pro-life booklets and ultrasounds, but lost.

https://www.courthousenews.com/satanist-loses-challenge-to-missouri-abortion-consent-law/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but dog forbid I would say

"To step back, the stated purpose of the ultrasound laws is to give a woman information about her pregnancy that might persuade her to opt against having an abortion."

You posted me stating that. post 112.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Monkey said:

Maybe we should start posting quotes from a few years ago when all of you lefties threw a tantrum about how important it was to let Obama have his SC judge. Every last person in PA is a hypocrite. Everyone has now taken the opposite side of what they argued for just a few years ago. All of us. Right and Left. 

Though archived and not available for responses, 2016 threads on the subject can still be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Joker said:

Why leave out the 2 black kids?  

Is the colour important to you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

"Coney" is another word for "rabbit".....

 She fucks like a rabbit.

She should be able to understand that other people who procreate as she does, don't have the resources to support those little rabbits.  Maybe she should provide good homes for these little bunnies if she won't let parents abort them.

 And no, adopting 2 kids doesn't let her off the fucking hook.

According to their website, People of Praise feel the less fortunate among us should be cared for.  Sounds socialistical to me.

WHO WE ARE

People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them."

Well, to be fair, they claim to admire such an attitude.  They don't expressly state they will practice what they preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans can thank Harry Reid for using the nuclear option reducing the number of votes needed for confirmation and the Democrat's reprehensible tactics used against Kavanaugh for their increased senate majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Barrett has raised more black children than Komala Harris
:D

After the brilliant move by Trump of marching out the family and 7 children and seating them in the front row proudly watching their mom introduced as the next Justice of the SCOTUS .... oh wait they also be watching their mom be asked questions by the Democrats.... Checkmate!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

Is the colour important to you?   
 

Not to me, but they were exclude from the family by the poster.   It was clear when he talked about her being a Slut that he was referring to her biological children.  I wanted to know why he left out the two adopted kids from Haiti,  who are black.
 

Your question would be better asked of Mrleft8 who either doesn’t count them because they were adopted or because they are black. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

and americans can thank the republicans for another nail in the coffin of the republic.

Of the subversive commie uprising that has been in full force since the end of the war in VN... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Why on earth would her faith demand such a thing?

I have ZERO assurances that any religious fundamentalist who has said ‘legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of God’  is not to be trusted.

The right says this is a normal Catholic thing...I was raised Catholic. This is not something we were taught as a life goal.

You weren’t taught the goal in life is to be a good catholic?  It is a normal thing in Christianity to reference the Kingdom of God.   Clearly you didn’t pay attention to the Lord’s Prayer In Sunday school.  You know the most important prayer in the Catholic Church.     “Thy Kingdom come thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”.   

The  comment from ACB was part of a commencement speech at one of the top Catholic Universities in the world, Notre Dame of course it would include religious references it’s a religious institution.  

USA Today fact check

The phrase “Kingdom of God” is a common refrain among Christians throughout history. In the Bible, the phrase is most often used by Jesus to describe the state in which God reigns in heaven or in which his will is enacted on Earth.

Christian sects and scholarly work differ on interpretations of the phrase, with some claiming that it is a perpetual state sought after on Earth while others claim it is something that can only arise after Judgment Day.

Regardless, in the context of the speech, Barrett was not arguing for an end to the separation of church and state, but rather for their Catholic faith to play a central role in the lives of the graduates she was addressing.

“I think you will find, when you enter the legal profession, that most of your colleagues, by default or by design, treat the legal profession as an end in and of itself,” Barrett said.

“Don’t let that happen to you; set your sights higher than that. No matter how exciting any career is, what is it really worth if you don’t make it part of a bigger life project to know, love, and serve the God who made you?” Barrett also emphasized.

 

Taken out of context and a false claim 

Missing Context

False claim

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Trump dick suckers praising Jesus and talking bout god is beautiful 

Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Republicans can thank Harry Reid for using the nuclear option reducing the number of votes needed for confirmation and the Democrat's reprehensible tactics used against Kavanaugh for their increased senate majority.

That’s a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I see Warped Bird wimped out on the abortion issue.

How do you figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

This bullshit is also critiqued, it's the obvious ploy. They can achieve that end without a rapey trans-vaginal, but honestly convincing a woman to keep a baby is none of the state's goddamned business.

BLM, BABIES LIVES MATTER:D

Babies are people too. The state should pick and choose which lives to protect. Maybe sour old lefties dont deserve state protections either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Because you ignored the question.

Which question? Post #?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, warbird said:

Which question? Post #?

I know you were completely shitfaced yesterday but before you get drunk again today,  use your remaining brain cell to search through the previous post in this thread.   Im not optimistic that you can discern which question you pointedly refused to address but give it a shot.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Republicans can thank Harry Reid for using the nuclear option reducing the number of votes needed for confirmation and the Democrat's reprehensible tactics used against Kavanaugh for their increased senate majority.

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I know you were completely shitfaced yesterday but before you get drunk again today,  use your remaining brain cell to search through the previous post in this thread.   Im not optimistic that you can discern which question you pointedly refused to address but give it a shot.
 

So you got nothing.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, just when you think that Republicans can not possibly go any lower, they pull this kind of shit.

Critics Go Ballistic As GOP Peddles 'Notorious ACB' T-shirts

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/nrsc-gop-peddling-notorious-acb-shirts-054414726.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats on the committee aren't going to attack Barrett on her family or her religion.  Those have been poll tested.  Attacking the kids is bad optics.

Judge Barrett has essentially written that Obamacare's Pre-Existing condition restrictions are, in fact, unconstitutional.  That's why Trump is suddenlypushing out the Executive orders on pre-existing conditions BEFORE her senate confirmation.  If they're unconstitutional, then Trump's EO is unconstitutional.  Americans understand pre-existing conditions.  It's literally the only part of Obamacare that's universally liked and polls well for both republicans and democrats.

They'll follow up by attacking her on her worker right policies, vacation / leave times, etc. which are in opposition to the things Ivanka has pushed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 5:07 PM, Mark K said:

I think some will view her as imminently Bork-able.   

You misspelled bonk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Democrats on the committee aren't going to attack Barrett on her family or her religion.  Those have been poll tested.  Attacking the kids is bad optics.

Judge Barrett has essentially written that Obamacare's Pre-Existing condition restrictions are, in fact, unconstitutional.  That's why Trump is suddenlypushing out the Executive orders on pre-existing conditions BEFORE her senate confirmation.  If they're unconstitutional, then Trump's EO is unconstitutional.  Americans understand pre-existing conditions.  It's literally the only part of Obamacare that's universally liked and polls well for both republicans and democrats.

They'll follow up by attacking her on her worker right policies, vacation / leave times, etc. which are in opposition to the things Ivanka has pushed.

 

Democrats do however have a history of attacking Republican nominees (and presidents for that matter) on the basis of fictitious events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Democrats do however have a history of attacking Republican nominees (and presidents for that matter) on the basis of fictitious events.

Like that pizza parlor basement!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Democrats do however have a history of attacking Republican nominees (and presidents for that matter) on the basis of fictitious events.

Hillary still not "locked up".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Hillary still not "locked up".....

That is for Trump's second term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, Gropenfuhrer stood before a microphone and accused the Democrats of attacking Catholicism.

Joe Biden is Catholic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Democrats do however have a history of attacking Republican nominees (and presidents for that matter) on the basis of fictitious events.

Can you cite a single example? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 6:01 PM, Monkey said:

Maybe we should start posting quotes from a few years ago when all of you lefties threw a tantrum about how important it was to let Obama have his SC judge. Every last person in PA is a hypocrite. Everyone has now taken the opposite side of what they argued for just a few years ago. All of us. Right and Left. 

Hello strawman.  Thy name is monky fucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

Yesterday, Gropenfuhrer stood before a microphone and accused the Democrats of attacking Catholicism.

Joe Biden is Catholic.

 

Yes, and Biden will hurt god.

I'm not sure how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Hello strawman.  Thy name is monky fucker.

Lacking purple, Monkey is generally reasonable and rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Can you cite a single example? 

See baseless accusations against Kavanaugh and RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

Democrats do however have a history of attacking Republican nominees (and presidents for that matter) on the basis of fictitious events.

Kenya flag emoji - country flags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone with a good mind thought of a different approach to Amy Comorbidity Barrett.

And to the Facebook Group "Progressive Veterans and Military Families".... 

A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice. 

- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. 

The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise. 

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will. 

So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her. 

- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is. 

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3. 

So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. 

Here's a few more suggestions. 

- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character. 

- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?! 

- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. 

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then turn to the Hatch Act. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions?

  1. When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?
 

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those. 

Then turn to Congressional Oversight. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again
  1. to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
 

Then turn to Trump's impeachment. 

Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American? 

Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election. 

Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time. 

Taking this approach does a number of things. 

1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been. 

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump. 

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice. 

Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character. 

Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic Reich also wants to outlaw birth control. 

Full disclosure - I was Catholic raised, more or less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then turn to the Hatch Act. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions?

  1. When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

 Then turn to all the other violations of the trump administration

This would be awesome. I'd pay to watch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 7:44 PM, B.J. Porter said:

1) It is, and it's arguably pretty invasive.

Really?

I'm not a doctor and I've performed an ultrasound. Got in trouble from my partner for pushing too hard on her full bladder. 

And the law (as stated previously in this thread) doesn't necessarily require a trans vaginal ultrasound, merely one of good quality. Compared to a D&C an ultrasound isn't what I would consider particularly invasive.

Should it be required? No. But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Really?

I'm not a doctor and I've performed an ultrasound. Got in trouble from my partner for pushing too hard on her full bladder. 

And the law (as stated previously in this thread) doesn't necessarily require a trans vaginal ultrasound, merely one of good quality. Compared to a D&C an ultrasound isn't what I would consider particularly invasive.

Should it be required? No. But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

The old slippery slope argument. It won’t work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 1,500 Rhodes College alums have come out against the AC Barrett confirmation. 

That has to be unprecedented .  

(Rhodes is a highly rated and excellent lib arts college in Memphis) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Se7en said:

Really?

I'm not a doctor and I've performed an ultrasound. Got in trouble from my partner for pushing too hard on her full bladder. 

And the law (as stated previously in this thread) doesn't necessarily require a trans vaginal ultrasound, merely one of good quality. Compared to a D&C an ultrasound isn't what I would consider particularly invasive.

Should it be required? No. But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

I'm married to an OB/GYN who has performed many of them, and on more than one occasion we hooked up the machine in her office to have a look at our kids in utero. I'm quite familiar with the process.

If you don't want to be there, I would argue that forcing you to lift your clothes up and fire ultrasonic waves to look inside your body is indeed "invasive."

You are looking inside someone's body FFS.

And it does require the removing clothing in the affect areas (albeit sliding it back) and physical contact. If some weirdo did that to a woman on a bus he'd be arrested for assault.

Compared to a heart transplant a D&C isn't invasive...so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about the "quiver-full" religious fundamentalism  . . 

of sectors of all the major religions (and the minor ones too for all I know) 

they're all trying to out-breed each other 

thus the need for the hand-maids. 

Coming soon to a court house near you. 

Neither I nor Margaret Atwood are making this up . .  

“But if just eight million American Christians began supplying more ‘arrows for the war’ by having six children or more, they propose that the Christian Right ranks could rise to 550 million within a century.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Se7en said:

But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

You're not the one paying it - literally and figuratively paying it. It's not being done to you, and it's not something YOU have to pay for.

The ultrasound fairy does not deliver these procedures for free (if memory serves the U/S machine we had in my wife's office cost something like $50K when it was new). They will be passed on to the pregnant woman, who often is choosing to terminate her pregnancy because she's not in a financial position to have a baby. It adds to the financial hardship.

There is ZERO reason to mandate unnecessary medical procedures on women to throw a sop to a bunch of misogynistic dick-bags who are trying to control women's bodies.

LAWS about things like health care should consider the medical needs of the patients, not the religious fetishes of the lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

The ultrasound fairy does not deliver these procedures for free (if memory serves the U/S machine we had in my wife's office cost something like $50K when it was new). They will be passed on to the pregnant woman, who often is choosing to terminate her pregnancy because she's not in a financial position to have a baby. It adds to the financial hardship.

LAWS about things like health care should consider the medical needs of the patients, not the religious fetishes of the lawmakers.

Hmmm - the typical ultrasound in a ob/gyn office would cost about $5k in AU, and the service would be (essentially) free for the woman. I forget how badly you get raped for medical expenses in the US. (So, in $ terms as a taxpayer I am paying for it in AU)

Hey - I agree with you completely about health care vs religion. But I do also understand that you chose to live in a country that is mostly democratic, and also has a majority who believe in some flavour of omnipitent god who it can be claimed wants such things. Ideally I'd ban ALL religions, and enforce an IQ test before allowing someone to vote. But as I'm not the boss, and you do live in a society where "god's will" influences policy, I do suggest that accepting compulsory ultrasounds as the price of safe abortions is a compromise that is acceptable. 

Put it another way - I'd accept that compromise today, while hoping for change in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

Compared to a heart transplant a D&C isn't invasive...so what?

OK... compared the procedure that was used to get the woman pregnant, and the procedure she will need to go through to get unpregnant (one way or the other), most reasonable people would place a trans abdominal ultrasound quite low on a scale of invasiveness.

Is that better stated for the pedant class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Se7en said:

Compared to a D&C an ultrasound isn't what I would consider particularly invasive.

Should it be required? No. But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

For some reason I’d like to require prostate biopsIes for some of the same reasons. :rolleyes:  

Now I’ve forgotten why......... oh, right fertility.......or something........:lol: 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Over 1,500 Rhodes College alums have come out against the AC Barrett confirmation. 

That has to be unprecedented .  

(Rhodes is a highly rated and excellent lib arts college in Memphis) 

Heh. I'm a Rhodent. Though it was clumsily named "Southwestern at Memphis" when I went there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Se7en said:

OK... compared the procedure that was used to get the woman pregnant, and the procedure she will need to go through to get unpregnant (one way or the other), most reasonable people would place a trans abdominal ultrasound quite low on a scale of invasiveness.

Is that better stated for the pedant class?

So you'd be down with requiring a prostate check before a vasectomy? No medical reason for it...just because it's not any more invasive?

And if a woman was raped, I would argue that the process by which she got pregnant was mighty invasive. Now we're going to make her submit to another unneeded procedure?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Se7en said:

Hmmm - the typical ultrasound in a ob/gyn office would cost about $5k in AU, and the service would be (essentially) free for the woman. I forget how badly you get raped for medical expenses in the US. (So, in $ terms as a taxpayer I am paying for it in AU)

Hey - I agree with you completely about health care vs religion. But I do also understand that you chose to live in a country that is mostly democratic, and also has a majority who believe in some flavour of omnipitent god who it can be claimed wants such things. Ideally I'd ban ALL religions, and enforce an IQ test before allowing someone to vote. But as I'm not the boss, and you do live in a society where "god's will" influences policy, I do suggest that accepting compulsory ultrasounds as the price of safe abortions is a compromise that is acceptable. 

Put it another way - I'd accept that compromise today, while hoping for change in the future.

Bring out the thought police.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Se7en said:

Hmmm - the typical ultrasound in a ob/gyn office would cost about $5k in AU, and the service would be (essentially) free for the woman. I forget how badly you get raped for medical expenses in the US. (So, in $ terms as a taxpayer I am paying for it in AU)

I don't know what they're running now. This machine was probably bought 15+ years ago.

What you do in Australia is largely irrelevant, as we're not talking about Australian medicine or abortion laws now, are we?

The way the American system works, your OB/Gyn gets paid a flat fee for the delivery which covers all the doctor's time. It does NOT cover things like sonography and other testing which may be needed. I suspect my wife may have switched the machine on a few times for patients without coding for it, but she generally wasn't the person doing the sonogram.

But yes, it is not cheap.

https://kompareit.com/business/medical-equipment-buying-portable-ultrasound-machine.html

image.png.0c73cdda459d98b920123e44f71c0780.png

https://www.valuepenguin.com/cost-sonogram-ultrasound-pregnancy

https://www.mdsave.com/procedures/fetal-ultrasound-routine/d784fac5

image.png.4ec6253c9a9b7c036a2b20a3ca3c4034.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Se7en said:

But I do also understand that you chose to live in a country that is mostly democratic,

Technically, I was born in the U.S., I didn't choose it.

I continue to remain a citizen, true, but changing it is rather a pain in the ass without a compelling reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Se7en said:

OK... compared the procedure that was used to get the woman pregnant, and the procedure she will need to go through to get unpregnant (one way or the other), most reasonable people would place a trans abdominal ultrasound quite low on a scale of invasiveness.

Is that better stated for the pedant class?

But ultimately though, no, it is NOT better.

You are pretty cavalier giving away women's rights to their own bodily autonomy, it seems. I am not.

"It's not that invasive" - have you ever had a medical procedure forced on you that you didn't want? Who are you to judge how someone reacts to having their body invaded against their will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

But ultimately though, no, it is NOT better.

You are pretty cavalier giving away women's rights to their own bodily autonomy, it seems. I am not.

"It's not that invasive" - have you ever had a medical procedure forced on you that you didn't want? Who are you to judge how someone reacts to having their body invaded against their will?

Women do not have rights to their own body in this country.  But they should.  Can they sell a kidney?  Can they cut off their hands?   Can they ingest any substance they please?  

The issue here are the rights of other people, like babies.  Does the government have an interest in protecting the rights of babies?  Is there a right to an abortion in the Constitution?

The government should not be forcing medical procedures period.  But it may very well have an interest in protecting the fetus.  

Does the government have an interest in protecting turtle eggs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Women do not have rights to their own body in this country.  But they should.  Can they sell a kidney?  Can they cut off their hands?   Can they ingest any substance they please?  

The issue here are the rights of other people, like babies.  Does the government have an interest in protecting the rights of babies?  Is there a right to an abortion in the Constitution?

The government should not be forcing medical procedures period.  But it may very well have an interest in protecting the fetus.  

Does the government have an interest in protecting turtle eggs?

Sure thing Sybil. You may want to refill that prescription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

have you ever had a medical procedure forced on you that you didn't want? Who are you to judge how someone reacts to having their body invaded against their will?

If you are trying to find out if I'm jewish, you could just ask!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:
7 hours ago, Se7en said:

Really?

I'm not a doctor and I've performed an ultrasound. Got in trouble from my partner for pushing too hard on her full bladder. 

And the law (as stated previously in this thread) doesn't necessarily require a trans vaginal ultrasound, merely one of good quality. Compared to a D&C an ultrasound isn't what I would consider particularly invasive.

Should it be required? No. But if that's all it takes to get states to agree to allow free access to safe abortions, then it doesn't seem to be too high a price.

The old slippery slope argument. It won’t work. 

 

He's assuming that the righties are bargaining in good faith.

The historical evidence suggests that they're not. But other than that, and that it mandates added time/expense to medical procedure, it's a good point.

I like and trust doctors to do the doctoring, not lawyers. Just like I don't want to be represented in court by a doctor... or ride in a plane flown by one....

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Technically, I was born in the U.S., I didn't choose it.

I continue to remain a citizen, true, but changing it is rather a pain in the ass without a compelling reason.

And if you don't find the current president and social distrust compelling, I guess nothing would move you!

 

40 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

So you'd be down with requiring a prostate check before a vasectomy? No medical reason for it...just because it's not any more invasive?

And if a woman was raped, I would argue that the process by which she got pregnant was mighty invasive. Now we're going to make her submit to another unneeded procedure?

Knowing my Dr, the prostate exam would just be so he can get a better grip for the vasectomy.

Tell me - when your wife was pregnant, did anyone ever rub her belly? And did you jump up and down and scream "RAPE" at that person?

Nothing like going to extremes to blow any chance of a reasonable discussion out of the water.

If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, and it comes down to a choice of letting the religious nutters have their ultrasound clause OR them blocking abortions completely, which way would you vote? I tried to discuss it reasonably, but if you just want to run around with your hands in the air yelling "Rape", it seems pointless.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Se7en said:

And if you don't find the current president and social distrust compelling, I guess nothing would move you!

 

Knowing my Dr, the prostate exam would just be so he can get a better grip for the vasectomy.

Tell me - when your wife was pregnant, did anyone ever rub her belly? And did you jump up and down and scream "RAPE" at that person?

Nothing like going to extremes to blow any chance of a reasonable discussion out of the water.

If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, and it comes down to a choice of letting the religious nutters have their ultrasound clause OR them blocking abortions completely, which way would you vote? I tried to discuss it reasonably, but if you just want to run around with your hands in the air yelling "Rape", it seems pointless.

 

If/when Roe is overturned, this argument goes out the window. There will be no abortion in something like 21 states immediately based on laws they already have passed.

Ulteasound today, decertifying Drs tomorrow. It just continues.

you either believe a woman has a right to control her body or you don’t. Clearly you don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

If/when Roe is overturned, this argument goes out the window. There will be no abortion in something like 21 states immediately based on laws they already have passed.

you either believe a woman has a right to control her body or you don’t. Clearly you don’t. 

That's my fucking point. What compromise would you be willing to accept in those 21 states to get abortion availiable again, immediately? Not the solution cast in stone for all time, but the compromise to achieve something NOW.

It's starting to seem like Democrats deserve the Republicans - both sides just see things as black or white. "either believe a woman has a right to control her body or you don’t". Is there some point at which both sides will even try to give a little to the other? You have half the country believing in women's rights, and half believing that their favourite sky fairy condems abortion. If you can't compromise, you all lose.

I believe that people should have bodily autonomy. I also believe society has the right to violate that via a forceable cavity search in some circumstances. I've grown up quite a bit since I saw the world in unmuteable black or white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

He's assuming that the righties are bargaining in good faith.

The historical evidence suggests that they're not. But other than that, and that it mandates added time/expense to medical procedure, it's a good point.

I like and trust doctors to do the doctoring, not lawyers. Just like I don't want to be represented in court by a doctor... or ride in a plane flown by one....

- DSK

This. If everyone agreed an ultrasound was a required prerequisite for an abortion, they'd just change the goalposts to require something more invasive & expensive.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
47 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

He's assuming that the righties are bargaining in good faith.

The historical evidence suggests that they're not. But other than that, and that it mandates added time/expense to medical procedure, it's a good point.

I like and trust doctors to do the doctoring, not lawyers. Just like I don't want to be represented in court by a doctor... or ride in a plane flown by one....

 

This. If everyone agreed an ultrasound was a required prerequisite for an abortion, they'd just change the goalposts to require something more invasive & expensive.

Agreed

And I'm uneasy with a blanket requirement for any given medical procedure, coming from lawyers rather than doctors. But it's not such a bad idea, itself. Like a blood test for getting married.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Se7en said:

That's my fucking point. What compromise would you be willing to accept in those 21 states to get abortion availiable again, immediately? Not the solution cast in stone for all time, but the compromise to achieve something NOW.

It's starting to seem like Democrats deserve the Republicans - both sides just see things as black or white. "either believe a woman has a right to control her body or you don’t". Is there some point at which both sides will even try to give a little to the other? You have half the country believing in women's rights, and half believing that their favourite sky fairy condems abortion. If you can't compromise, you all lose.

I believe that people should have bodily autonomy. I als