Invisible Man
Member

I see that too. Both sides are going to push for federal legislation. It will come down to who pulls it off. But I tend to agree with you that something more on the pro-choice side will more likely prevail. And if and when that happens, if anybody thinks that yesterday's ruling is a harbinger of such future federal legislation being overturned on the grounds that they think SCOTUS will say it has to be left up to the states, then I think those people will be proven wrong on that day. And in fact, I see yesterday's ruling as SCOTUS passing the buck back to Congress and saying, "Don't expect us to tell states they have to allow abortion, that's your job." When and if Congress takes SCOTUS up on that challenge, SCOTUS will simply say, "Good, that's just what we told you to do."

When and if that becomes politically feasible at the federal level (with both houses of Congress and a President who support it), yes, I think there's a good chance of that. Pro-lifers are pushing for stronger federal legislation than that, up to the point of a nationwide ban or at least very strict restrictions. I don't know what the changes are that they would get that, even when the GOP controls Congress and the WH again. But it will be more than just one of those crazy bills that gets introduced by some extremist and goes nowhere. It will be a serious proposal with significant Republican support.

That was a case where elements of the crime happened in both states, and that fact was crucial to their both being able to prosecute him. I don't think that states can prosecute crimes that wholly occurred in other states. Supposedly Kavanaugh made a point about this in his opinion to the effect that states can't prosecute people for travelling to other states to get abortions. I haven't read his opinion for myself yet though.

This is what most are saying about it. But in my reading of the opinion this isn't quite the case. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that Roe was essentially legislation from the bench, and that if such a law were to be made, it should be made by the legislative branch, not the judicial. It seems to have left the door open for abortion legislation at both the federal and state level, including the possibility of federal legislation prohibiting states from restricting abortion along the same lines that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton did. Granted, the political reality may be that federal legislation like that won't be feasible. But I don't think the Court said it had to be a purely state issue.

As far as I can tell, I think Ron Paul would agree with this court decision.

What do you mean?

They are not expected to follow it by anyone who knows anything about how meaningless it is. That's a good idea. A good rule of thumb would be that anybody who gets a high score on that index is a Republican in name only. On the other hand, the true blue Republicans who truly represent what the party is all about, always do pretty poorly on that index, as you have shown. The New American is a publication of the John Birch Society. And you surely must be aware that the Republican Party despises and anathematizes the John Birch Society. If a Republican senator is rated poorly by the JBS, that is a point in favor of, rather than against, their Republican Party bona fides.

Once again, anyone who thinks that those ten names are Republicans in name only fails to apprehend what the real essence of the Republican party is. Because you can't get any closer to that essence than those ten Senators.

In their own words, the seceding states thought it was about slavery for them. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

So, for people who think like this (and don't get me wrong, I'm not deluded into thinking there really are more than a tiny handful), any male with unfulfilled sexual desire should be able to meet that felt need by claiming to be a transgender lesbian and using that as leverage to compel other lesbians to have straight, male-female, but also lesbian-lesbian sex with them. I think I understood that right. I remember Rush Limbaugh joking that he was a lesbian trapped in a man's body, as a way of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. And now, here we are.

I'm not the only one who took nothing more than that away from the entire write-up. You also did, as evidenced by what you chose to mention in your own post linking to it. Apparently, you join with the MSM author of that write-up in thinking that these MSM journalists whose side was being taken in that write-up should have been crashing these kids' funerals to interview people.

Five key states, of which Texas is not one. Have any of the legislatures of any of those 5 states passed any similar resolutions repudiating the results that they certified for their states? They've had plenty of time to. If not, then it would seem that those legislatures all accept that votes cast by their states' electors were indeed cast as directed by those same state legislatures, as the US Constitution requires.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again."

I agree.

Do you think that Biden falling is getting lots of news coverage?

Three guesses as to which direction the gay agenda is going to go with this.

I guess we'll see.

I think that the key factor was gridlock, not a dominance of small government principles in Congress. But I'm all for gridlock.

But again, only a pretense for someone who doesn't think others should take them seriously. If you actually think they should take you seriously, then dressing like you believe that is not a pretense. Edit: On the other hand, if someone dresses like they don't care how they look because the want to look like they're dropping pretenses, then that's just another pretense.

Appearing to take oneself seriously is only a pretense when one doesn't take oneself seriously.

It's not shopping Italian. You can get decent collared shirts, coats, and ties, all at Good Will. I think you're right about substance and style. But those things aren't an either/or. When I watch that interview with Heise, before Heise opens his mouth, I already see a guy who doesn't honestly consider what he's doing all that serious.

Why do libertarians always have to be such tatterdemalions?

What was this Fauci was talking about at 6:30? "People who receive royalties are not required to divulge them, even on their financial statements, according to the Bayh Dole Act."

Is Reich talking about Liz Cheney running as a Democrat? As much as I'd love to see her do that, it's not happening.

Is the argument here that capital investors are freely choosing to invest their money in other things instead of petroleum, and that the lack of this amount of investment that they think otherwise would go to petroleum if these investors wanted to invest there, is somehow "choking off" petroleum exploration? If that's what's happening, and there's not some other impediment that is making it unattractive to invest in petroleum, then at some point the opportunity to profit that is being created by these foolish investors will just attract other less foolish investors to petroleum and the problem will correct itself. I suspect that something else is getting in the way of that.

How does keeping them out of the actual funerals prevent them from being able to learn facts about the story though? They ought to be able to do their investigations without interfering with funerals.

I don't think viability as a candidate should be a consideration. Viable third party candidates are not one of the options available to us.

IMHO, the worse things get, the more it's a time for comic relief. Not that I'm supporting Smith--I don't know enough about him--but I can see a case for that, especially if he's also smart and articulate in arguing for the right positions.

https://babylonbee.com/news/conservatives-call-for-return-to-traditional-strip-clubs-with-no-kids-or-drag-queens

Party platforms are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with what the party stands for. Those who control the Republican party are not Republicans In Name Only, as proven by the fact that they're the ones who control the party. They are the quintessential Republicans, who define the meaning of the label Republican, a label that should be worn with shame, not aspired to.