|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 28, 2022 17:32:24 GMT -6
Sorry High Pockets but it has everything to do with the new environment involving abortion. Same thing as some of these states saying they will prevent pregnant women from leaving the state. Anyone trying to prevent my daughter from leaving this or any other state gets their fucking head blown off. Blown clean the fuck off. You know that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to restrict interstate transit and that such a statute would be struck down immediately by the federal judiciary. Yet you get riled up about it to the point of threatening violence. Do you know why that is?
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 28, 2022 21:24:37 GMT -6
Anyone trying to prevent my daughter from leaving this or any other state gets their fucking head blown off. Blown clean the fuck off. You know that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to restrict interstate transit and that such a statute would be struck down immediately by the federal judiciary. Yet you get riled up about it to the point of threatening violence. Do you know why that is? He’s got anger issues
|
|
Other
Sports Moderator
Interim Master of the Universe
Posts: 5,202
Tits or GTFO: GTFO
|
Post by Other on Dec 28, 2022 22:49:26 GMT -6
You know that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to restrict interstate transit and that such a statute would be struck down immediately by the federal judiciary. Yet you get riled up about it to the point of threatening violence. Do you know why that is? He’s got anger issues I’m increasingly inclined to think Thor is on the right level. It’s not that he’s too angry it’s that we aren’t angry enough.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 29, 2022 7:18:15 GMT -6
I’m increasingly inclined to think Thor is on the right level. It’s not that he’s too angry it’s that we aren’t angry enough. Go on.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 29, 2022 13:16:13 GMT -6
Anyone trying to prevent my daughter from leaving this or any other state gets their fucking head blown off. Blown clean the fuck off. You know that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to restrict interstate transit and that such a statute would be struck down immediately by the federal judiciary. Yet you get riled up about it to the point of threatening violence. Do you know why that is? It was blatantly unconstitutional to prevent a woman from terminating a first trimester pregnancy until recently too, wasn’t it. Do you know why that is?
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 29, 2022 13:28:35 GMT -6
It’s weird how personal Liberty absolutists and libertarians drop those principles when it comes to women’s rights. It almost like they’re misogynistic disingenuous hypocritical pieces of shit or something.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 29, 2022 16:36:00 GMT -6
You know that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to restrict interstate transit and that such a statute would be struck down immediately by the federal judiciary. Yet you get riled up about it to the point of threatening violence. Do you know why that is? It was blatantly unconstitutional to prevent a woman from terminating a first trimester pregnancy until recently too, wasn’t it. Do you know why that is? Not relevant to my question. If you want a right, put it in the Constitution, don't rely on the judiciary to create it out of whole cloth. I'd be all in favor of an actual codified right to privacy, even one that expressly recognized abortion as included in that right, but you and I both know that will never happen and our kids will know nothing other than a surveillance state.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 29, 2022 16:37:57 GMT -6
It’s weird how personal Liberty absolutists and libertarians drop those principles when it comes to women’s rights. It almost like they’re misogynistic disingenuous hypocritical pieces of shit or something. Men can have babies, too, so please take your transphobic hate elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 29, 2022 16:56:45 GMT -6
It was blatantly unconstitutional to prevent a woman from terminating a first trimester pregnancy until recently too, wasn’t it. Do you know why that is? Not relevant to my question. If you want a right, put it in the Constitution, don't rely on the judiciary to create it out of whole cloth. I'd be all in favor of an actual codified right to privacy, even one that expressly recognized abortion as included in that right, but you and I both know that will never happen and our kids will know nothing other than a surveillance state. Is judicial review in the constitution
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 29, 2022 17:14:54 GMT -6
Not relevant to my question. If you want a right, put it in the Constitution, don't rely on the judiciary to create it out of whole cloth. I'd be all in favor of an actual codified right to privacy, even one that expressly recognized abortion as included in that right, but you and I both know that will never happen and our kids will know nothing other than a surveillance state. Is judicial review in the constitution You sonofabitch. You are not to bring up Marbury v. Madison on a HAWKEYE SPORTS BOARD. My night is fucking ruined.
|
|
|
Post by twinlaker on Dec 29, 2022 20:00:32 GMT -6
Is judicial review in the constitution You sonofabitch. You are not to bring up Marbury v. Madison on a HAWKEYE SPORTS BOARD. My night is fucking ruined. For the love of gawd …. don’t piss your pants!
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 29, 2022 20:10:02 GMT -6
You sonofabitch. You are not to bring up Marbury v. Madison on a HAWKEYE SPORTS BOARD. My night is fucking ruined. For the love of gawd …. don’t piss your pants! I dribbled a few drops on my pants. ON. MY. PANTS.
|
|
|
Post by twinlaker on Dec 29, 2022 21:51:33 GMT -6
For the love of gawd …. don’t piss your pants! I dribbled a few drops on my pants. ON. MY. PANTS. I believe that is pissing your pants, Counselor.
|
|
|
Post by twinlaker on Dec 29, 2022 21:53:10 GMT -6
For the love of gawd …. don’t piss your pants! I dribbled a few drops on my pants. ON. MY. PANTS. I believe that is pissing your pants, Counselor. You didn’t dribble on your neighbor’s pants did you?
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 30, 2022 8:06:31 GMT -6
Just for historical context here:
1) When the constitution was drafted, no women were involved; indeed women didn’t even possess the right to vote in 1787. They were essentially considered property. Of course their rights to autonomy and privacy were not acknowledged. When you hear cocksuckers going on about originalism, this is the arrangement they desire.
2) In 1787, the word “privacy” essentially referred to taking a shit in an outhouse. Of course that word wasn’t going to make an appearance in the constitution.
Regarding interstate commerce barring travel restrictions, remember, the constitution only means what five SCROTUS justices say it means. So hell yes these theocratic assholes would allow travel restrictions vis a vis pregnancy.
As such, I reiterate my assertion that anyone attempting to restrict my daughter’s travel gets two taps to the dome. Minimum
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 30, 2022 9:09:59 GMT -6
Just for historical context here: 1) When the constitution was drafted, no women were involved; indeed women didn’t even possess the right to vote in 1787. They were essentially considered property. Of course their rights to autonomy and privacy were not acknowledged. When you hear cocksuckers going on about originalism, this is the arrangement they desire. 2) In 1787, the word “privacy” essentially referred to taking a shit in an outhouse. Of course that word wasn’t going to make an appearance in the constitution. Regarding interstate commerce barring travel restrictions, remember, the constitution only means what five SCROTUS justices say it means. So hell yes these theocratic assholes would allow travel restrictions vis a vis pregnancy. As such, I reiterate my assertion that anyone attempting to restrict my daughter’s travel gets two taps to the dome. Minimum No, no they wouldn't. You see you operate under the mistaken belief that conservative jurists behave like leftist jurists and vote a straight "party line" ticket. They don't. If they did Roberts would have overturned Obamacare. Scalia would not have allowed flag burning. Gorsuch wouldn't have dissented in that Title 42 case the other day. Did any of the COVID travel restriction cases even make it to appellate courts? I didn't follow other states but our firm was considering suing McMaster for the Cackalack travel ban but he caught so much political heat he pulled it within a few weeks. There's no practical mechanism through which to enforce any sort of interstate travel restriction. It's not like a state border is a McDonald's in California or some other leftist utopia where they can demand to see your papers before permitting entry.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 30, 2022 10:54:34 GMT -6
Just for historical context here: 1) When the constitution was drafted, no women were involved; indeed women didn’t even possess the right to vote in 1787. They were essentially considered property. Of course their rights to autonomy and privacy were not acknowledged. When you hear cocksuckers going on about originalism, this is the arrangement they desire. 2) In 1787, the word “privacy” essentially referred to taking a shit in an outhouse. Of course that word wasn’t going to make an appearance in the constitution. Regarding interstate commerce barring travel restrictions, remember, the constitution only means what five SCROTUS justices say it means. So hell yes these theocratic assholes would allow travel restrictions vis a vis pregnancy. As such, I reiterate my assertion that anyone attempting to restrict my daughter’s travel gets two taps to the dome. Minimum No, no they wouldn't. You see you operate under the mistaken belief that conservative jurists behave like leftist jurists and vote a straight "party line" ticket. They don't. If they did Roberts would have overturned Obamacare. Scalia would not have allowed flag burning. Gorsuch wouldn't have dissented in that Title 42 case the other day. Did any of the COVID travel restriction cases even make it to appellate courts? I didn't follow other states but our firm was considering suing McMaster for the Cackalack travel ban but he caught so much political heat he pulled it within a few weeks. There's no practical mechanism through which to enforce any sort of interstate travel restriction. It's not like a state border is a McDonald's in California or some other leftist utopia where they can demand to see your papers before permitting entry. I hope you’re right. I suspect you are, but Alito is off the deep end, Thomas is a lost cause, and Our Lady of Notre Dame is in over her head. Kegger Brett and Gorsuch seem the more deliberative of the five.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Dec 30, 2022 13:11:25 GMT -6
No, no they wouldn't. You see you operate under the mistaken belief that conservative jurists behave like leftist jurists and vote a straight "party line" ticket. They don't. If they did Roberts would have overturned Obamacare. Scalia would not have allowed flag burning. Gorsuch wouldn't have dissented in that Title 42 case the other day. Did any of the COVID travel restriction cases even make it to appellate courts? I didn't follow other states but our firm was considering suing McMaster for the Cackalack travel ban but he caught so much political heat he pulled it within a few weeks. There's no practical mechanism through which to enforce any sort of interstate travel restriction. It's not like a state border is a McDonald's in California or some other leftist utopia where they can demand to see your papers before permitting entry. I hope you’re right. I suspect you are, but Alito is off the deep end, Thomas is a lost cause, and Our Lady of Notre Dame is in over her head. Kegger Brett and Gorsuch seem the more deliberative of the five. I don't think it would ever get to the SCOTUS. The federal trial courts would all strike it down under the Privileges and Immunities clause. The appellate courts would do the same. There may be a handful of trial courts run by hardcore idealogues that would not strike it down, but no way it would survive any of the circuit courts. I was just poking a bit about some of your posts because my wife got me Hate Inc. for Christmas and I'm getting ready to read it. I came across it by looking for an update to Chomsky's classic "Manufacturing Consent" and Matt Taibbi, who I'm sure you now hate because Elon let him disclose some of the Twitter Files, has somewhat taken that torch and run with it. Supposedly it is about how the media will fine tune a few anchor points, get the proles worked up, and sow discontent that makes us hate each other. Taibbi coined that vampire squid line about Goldman back in the day and is a pretty hardcore leftist but is old enough and smart enough to see shit ain't right. And that's what prompted me to ask you those questions. I know that you know there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the facts necessary in your hypothetical for your daughter to be restrained from travelling to Illinois or Minnesota to ever come to fruition, yet you get enraged, which I presume is mostly bluster but I suspect it's still something that works you up. I'll let you know if the book is good, but the overview sounds pretty fucking amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Jan 3, 2023 15:18:57 GMT -6
Well this thread could certainly use a distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jan 26, 2023 16:10:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 26, 2023 16:36:46 GMT -6
No, totally wrong. She deprived the world of a person who in all likelihood would have gone on to devise a method to allow mankind, err, sorry for that, peoplekind to travel beyond our solar system. Peoplekind lost a lot of brainpower due to her decision.
|
|
|
Post by LansingHawk on Jan 26, 2023 17:41:14 GMT -6
No, totally wrong. She deprived the world of a person who in all likelihood would have gone on to devise a method to allow mankind, err, sorry for that, peoplekind to travel beyond our solar system. Peoplekind lost a lot of brainpower due to her decision. Not your decision to make man.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Feb 9, 2023 21:03:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 10, 2023 12:44:24 GMT -6
Suddenly the nationwide injunctions that became all the rage when that judge in Hawaii was doling them out like Walmart pushing toilet paper on March 15, 2020 aren't looking like such a good idea, are they?
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 2, 2023 21:49:24 GMT -6
|
|