Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Protects Abortion, 'Looks Other Way' on 2A
(www.breitbart.com)
🔥 FIRE & FURY 💥
Comments (339)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
A justice left of him shouldn’t even be allowed on the SCOTUS.
we need to get rid of the Liberals on the court. but also and just as importantly some red States should actually try it. has an abortion ban that requires a woman to show a justifiable need for an abortion
know what? while we're at it we should have Texas and some other red States passed laws against CNN showing that they have a justifiable need to report the news before they are allowed to even broadcast in the state..
let's see how quickly the supreme Court defends them. and maybe of Court justices prove that they are biased and able to do their jobs properly we can remove themm
These are all great ideas.
Also some sort of major lawsuit against 2nd Amendment infringement.
Hijacking to link to this great (surprisingly for PBS) Clarence Thomas autobiography:
https://www.pbs.org/video/created-equal-clarence-thomas-in-his-own-words-rymp6z/
I had no idea he was originally enticed by the left. His story is touching, amazing, tragic and also uplifting. Also interesting to see the left's playbook has not changed one bit. I agree with you all, we need more like him.
Thanking you for your great link by providing this one on how Thomas Sowell converted from Marxism to Capitalism by his own free thinking:
https://youtu.be/mS5WYp5xmvI
And thank you! I had recently heard that but hadn't done my research. This is great! I'll watch it in the morning.
Now I'm wondering if Shelby Steele might have had a similar path to conservatism...
The stuff that the court threw out were lawsuits against 2A infringement.
Someone here said it’s because they’re waiting to get another non leftist judge since Roberts is compromised.
I'm fairly certain that the law that was challenged in Roe v. Wade was one where abortions were only allowed under certain circumstances, aka "justifiable need". I think Alabama's law that penalizes doctors for performing abortions is a better way as it, at least as far as I can remember, hasn't been ruled on in court.
Another alternative would be establishing some kind of case topic quota where SCOTUS must hear at least the opening arguments for a minimum number of cases related to certain topics per year.
It's time to deport them all, whether they like it or not. And I don't care if they're technically citizens, either. Fuck them all.
While I love this thought this is something that can be am extremely sharp double edged sword.
We're well past the point where we should be standing on principles. Our enemies have none, and refusing to bend ours simply means we lose.
This.
You're right man.
It's a hard thing to admit, I like being principled. But I like not living in a North Korean style hellscpe more.
It's not principles. It's the fact that if a leftist ever gets into office again, they'll use any ammo we give them against us.
At the rate we're going, they will win all elections from 2024 onward simply due to importing 1 million legal immigrants per year, 90% of whom vote left for life. Since 2016, the 75 million legal immigrants already here that vote 90% left became 79 million legal immigrants that vote 90% left. By 2024 that number will be 83 million legal immigrants, 90% of whom vote left.
Along with 90% left voting minorities (which is all of them except Hispanics, who vote "only" 78% left), that's enough to make up a permanent left voting majority of voters.
We need to get the leftists out of this country before 2024. For good. Or we become Venezuela/North Korea overnight, starting in 2024, simply due to demographic replacement from legal immigration.
We either fight dirty in 2020-2024 or we are essentially defacto surrendering.
We're dealing with communists burning cities, communist DAs, governors and mayors letting them, and communist media spewing outright lies to further erode public faith in police and contribute to their complete destruction of our nation. Now is not the time to stand on principle. Principles are extended to those who have them. Our enemies have none.
A person to the left of him shouldn't be allowed. Period. Got it Jack? I DON'T WORK FOR YOU!
Listen here fat
A person left of him shouldn’t have the right to live
The left tries to stack the court with activists, THEY want to change the Constitution, not us. Fucking cunts love trying to say we want to "stack" the court. Infuriating.
They actively say that the constitution is outdated, and/or it is a “living, interpretable (to however they like)” document.
You are just as ignorant with your assertion that you know how the founding fathers would have felt. They did not have the benefit of the knowledge technology has given us, to say you know how they would have felt is asinine.
The definition of life didnt change. We just discovered when it really starts.
No it isn’t. I am just talking about what he said. No one is going to sit here and pretend they can read the minds of anyone, let alone our forefathers that are long since dead. It’s ridiculous. I’m not advocating for or against abortion, I’m just saying what he said was dumb.
Not necessarily because modern technology have muddied the citizenship clause:
In addition, we now have a better understanding of life, and with technology advancing as it has, we may get to the point where a woman isn't even necessary to carry a baby... which makes the entire birth side of things rather confusing as (for example) a baby grown completely in an artificial womb should still carry the same rights as one that was carried by a woman.
Additionally, if the founding fathers knew what we knew now about human development, I'm betting they would probably side with the conservatives and consider abortion to be murder.
That said, as high as the infant mortality rate was back in the late 1700's, I'm betting many of them would look at someone wanting an abortion as if it was a really bad joke.
People were more Christian then, and there was more respect for life than today. Abortion would have been unheard of.
Abortion has always been a thing - they just go about it openly, more frequently, and with much less risk to the woman's life today. They used to use certain plants, potions, throwing themselves down stairs, back-alley or 'clothes hanger' abortions, among other things.
Most women aren't willing to literally risk their own lives to get an abortion, which is why it was rarer back in the olden days. Now they do it & celebrate it as a badge of...something, but definitely not of 'honor.'
Nothing is more foreign to me than the thought of killing a child who is in (or out of) my womb. Most mothers would face a hungry tiger to protect her children from death.
Damn straight. He’s the perfect example of how “black lives matter” to the left when a black man leaves the plantation.
NPC: Cannot compute...blacks cannot support Republicans without voting against self interest..
Yep, blacks succeeding, getting a better job, starting a business, raising a fully nuclear family, not using welfare, is against their self interest in the left’s POV. But thank God tons of white people kneel, shows they care, really does a lot. Soft bigotry of low expectations on full display, that’s the real racism that’s prevalent in 2020.
I smart non-racist competent black conservative man that the Dems tried to thwart with sex assault allegations. Yeah I'll take nine of those please.
that's the Democrat white supremacists go to attack on black men. They always accuse them of raping a white woman so that they can lynchh them
Yeah, we definitely do. He's the only justice who consistently protects the constitution. Fucking Gorsuch just authored a ruling making gender and sexual orientation protected classes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
It's really amazing courts have completely thrown out the belief that a business owner has any rights when it comes to hiring and firing. More proof we are much more socialist than free. It's only going to get worse I fear.
Actually yes. Because by your admission such a business would never survive. If management did that to any of my coworkers I would quit in solidarity and encourage people not to patronize that business.
Freedom, how does it work?
That is not how this decision will be used and you know it. If you can't win on merit just force it via government. Great plan, dude. Businesses should be able to fire people for any reason. Period.
In my state, they can. Don't even have to give a reason for your firing. I'm ok with that - and I've never been fired from any job.
Freedom is a wonderful thing!
In point of fact, businesses operating in the jim crow era would likely also have chosen to not discriminate against a growing customer segment.
Laws are enacted to constrain the freely chosen behaviors of men. If Business owners were so racist that they didn't want black folk eating at their lunch counter or riding at the front of the bus then those restrictions would have been policies and not mandated by law.
The fact that those laws had to be enacted in the first place is arguably evidence that businesses generally do not want to discriminate, even at the high water mark of widespread racism.
Jim Crow laws were Jim Crow LAWS. People don't write laws, legislators do.
I think a business owner has inherent rights the same as any employee and if he or she only wants to hire people that they want working for them, honestly, they should be able to. Would I only hire white people or only straight? Nope and have hired many minoriites and gay folks over the years.
Most companies if not all nowadays are at will employment, and employers can fire someone whenever they want for any reason they want. Would I respect a company that was that overtly racist, of course not. And with social media today, a company that was discovered doing that would last about 2 seconds.
So, no I'm not "cool" with owners firing someone because of their skin color, I just think the true freedoms of association that we like to espouse doesn't trickle down to business owners in this day and age.
Sad times that people don't get that this mindset would apply to them too. It's the same reason right wingers get deplatformed. But they don't realize how stupid they sound when you say "MUH GAY CAKE!" Like, you can deny business to everyone or no one, there's no case for any in-between. So, everyone in America should be able to be served or else we go full tribalism.
Freedom is not supposed to be a one way thing. It shouldn’t be freedom for the customers but not for the owners.
EEO has been in place for a long time.
The Pandora's box that Gorcuck really opened was a legal precedence for gay and Trans to be recognized as genders.
Watch how long until that wave of cases hits the SC.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
Just to be clear, you cannot fire someone for being transgender but you can fire them for disagreeing with this law.
Free speech only applies to the people the left agrees with.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box <<<------ We are Here
Ammo Box
I think even Trump knows if he can't ultimately get them into a court to face their crimes we are going to go to a hot conflict. Not against fellow americans but against the corrupt seditious traitorous leadership who is playing us all against each other.
Doubtful. If we were going into a hot conflict, we would've done so the moment no go zones were established and BLM threatened America with jihad attacks.
Trump is just going to focus on the economy, national security, and foreign trade.
I suggest studying the 1850s. You do not get a hot conflict because one side challenges the status quo. You get a hot conflict when both sides believe that they are no longer served by the structure and process of government.
The left is already there. They hate everything about the system, because that is their fuel. America sucks. It is evil.
Their ownership of academia and government has now hatched into owning culture at all levels -- media, tech, Hollywood, and every aspect of the public conversation. That, in turn, has caused the right to decide that they system is no longer working for us either.
So now the stage is set, the lights are on, the band is playing. But we will need some singular event to start the dance. It is quite likely to be a fraudulent 2020 election. Only something of that magnitude is enough to start the war.
Unfortunately it is also probably sufficient to start it, given where we are as a population. Divided and angry.
I'm trying to put together a post detailing how the DNC has been funding and supporting an Islamic Revolution in America. If people don't care about that then they won't care about election fraud.
Also people from the 1850s had tradition and values. They were willing to fight and in many countries, tried to fight off the liberals with force. The generation then and the generation now are two totally different generations with different beliefs on how to handle liberals. Had they been around today, the world around us would be in constant fighting. Mexico, Europe, and the US would be in flames as people try to fight both the Muslims and the liberals.
Muslims aren't behind this.
This is a great idea. If it’s eloquently written, you should try to publish it as an op-Ed in the epoch times or OAN.
I welcome a civil war, even if it means I die while exterminating the enemy. This is bigger than a few lives.
Hmm. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that there might be a full-blown civil war this year. I feel like nobody (except a vocal minority) would actually go and fight. But what do I know?
The Title IS Very Confusing. It Looks Like Judge Thomas Is Telling The Liberals on the court to stop being 2 faced. Thomas dissented to SCOTUS’ rejection of the case by reasserting that the Second Amendment protects the “fundamental right…of the people to keep and bear Arms…yet in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so.”
“One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review,” Thomas said. “This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights.”
“And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion,” Thomas said. “But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”
The man’s a genius. Yet another of the countless examples where Biden being completely wrong actually helped this country.
Fuck why is SCOTUS so cucked now:(
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box <<<------ We are Here
Ammo Box <<< ------ I am here . . .
Depending on your location, the Ammo Box is the only option left. If you're stuck behind enemy lines in democrat-controlled hives, well, keep plenty in that box.
always be prepared
ABC = Always Be Carrying.
Amen
where i go so does glock and kel-tec
My understanding of this is that the conservative judges think that Roberts is going to cuck out on a gun ruling so they declined all 10 2A cases to run out the clock and wait for a Ginsberg/Breyer replacement. Pretty bullshit but the status quo is better than moving backwards federally.
I don't think they're hurting Trump. I vote strictly Libertarian. Not this year. I'm not his biggest fan, but I least I know he loves this country. With Georgia getting more liberal, I will not take a chance on Biden winning.
All of this stuff from the left, the hypocrisy, the media bias, the pandering, etc...has turned this independent's vote this fall. I can't be the only one.
Georgia going blue...that will be the day. A very dark day for the state and this country.
They want a federal law enforcement body (KGB) working at the behest of the demonrats the next time they take power.
Tienamen square was done by troops called in from the other side of the country who were fed propaganda from birth with no education. They want their own goons for America which will happily go door to door in red states and strip the rights from american citizens.
Yep, because it's obvious that old crow won't live for 4.5 more years.
*the
Roberts is a POS. End of.
Bush's worst legacy.
I think so, certainly long term.
And W was a fucking lefty moron on many many issues.
Ah good ole Bush, deep state pied piper for the conservatives. Built a massive spy apparatus to catch "hajis" that is now being used against patriots.
I think there’s something terrible they have on him.
It seems like pretty much everyone knows about his possible illegal adoption, so there’s probably something even worse that he doesn’t want to get out.
He should just do the honorable thing and step down.
He adopted Irish kids (illegally). If he steps out of line, they'll take his kids from him.
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/11/scotus-chief-justice-john-roberts-his.html
Court appointments are for life, the ability to take kids away from someone is 18 years tops.
Man and/or boy luv, is my guess.
Really the only thing it could be.
this
Not to mention the last 2a win that came out of the court, was from a case out of chicago. The guy won, but the city told him to fuck off anyway.
But how about the law that NYC withdrew?
Surely if they withdrew they knew they were going to lose?
What I meant is that SCOTUS should have given a judgement to avoid the bullshit you described.
They murdered Scalia.
Change my mind.
nah, fren. not gonna change your mind.
w3tw0rks!
You can it here.It is right in John Podesta emails. wetworks.
Wetworks.
Wet works in the vineyard!
You mean "water works" and Scalia talk between two Clinton Campaign executives a short time before his death ISN'T normal?
So Obama could pick another supreme.
Should just be referred to as "Vatican II schools". Catholics would rather die than host such an abomination.
This is my interpretation of today's ruling about lgtbq, which I think I like after thinking about it for a few hours. It's mostly copy/pasted from other responses I've written so everything below is written by me. I'd like to get more thoughts on it because I'm definitely no legal scholar.
I actually agree with the ruling, but I also agree with others that political ideology wouldn't be a bad thing to add to our protected classes.
Person X is attracted to a man. If person X is female and you're ok with it but not if person X is male then that is sex discrimination. I literally haven't heard this argument until today.
Likewise let's say Person X wears skirts. If you're ok with X being female wearing skirts, but not ok with X being male wearing skirts then that is also sex discrimination.
Leftists wanted [males identifying as women] to be officially females, but this ruling literally does the exact opposite lol. The ruling opinion (from Gorsuch) literally says that males identifying as females are not females--they are males. However, if you're ok with a FEMALE doing something then you can't discriminate if a MALE does the same thing.
I honestly don't even think the left knows what this means yet. IMO this is a secret red pill. The ruling is both freedom oriented AND biology oriented and imo cements that males/females are determined at birth and are unrelated to gender.
The ruling opinion (from Gorsuch) literally says that males identifying as females are not females--they are males.
Do you have a link to this handy?
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/15/21291515/supreme-court-bostock-clayton-county-lgbtq-neil-gorsuch
This entire case falls apart if you get rid of the SEX protection lol. I love this because it should make everyone happy (but it probably won't). LGBTQ people get their protections and we still get to respect biology. Male/female are determined at birth.
One thing this doesn't do (like Tim Pool suggested) is that you can't claim to be a different species because this is about SEX. Tim Pool suggested you could identify as a tiger or something but that really doesn't apply.
Let's say Person X and Person Y identify as a tiger. If person X is a female and Person Y is a male and you fire them both then it's not sex discrimination.
The only way that would be sex discrimination is if you allow a male to be a tiger and not a female (or vice versa).
I think more than anything else you're going to see employers get even more cagey or creative about why people are getting let go. I'd also guess that people who aren't in protected classes just became more attractive as applicant's because it's less liability if they turn out to be garbage at their job.
As a disclaimer, I'm basing that off some videos I've watched and from reading people's comments on here.
I identify as a man who identifies as a woman identifying as a man. I'm even on HRT (read: blasting a ton of steroids) to get me to the level of man-woman-man I see myself as.
My wife, who is also on steroids, and I have a running joke that she's a tranny. So I'm a MtFtM tranny who is (gay?) married to a FtM (based off of her test levels) tranny.
Really sends the point home about the insanity of it all.
IMO no this won't happen.
Let's say Person X identifies as Gender Y
Imagine if Gender = tiger gender (Tim Pool said something like this). A business owner could not allow either males or females to be employed as tiger gender because there is literally no discrimination based off of sex because all sexes are not allowed to be tiger gender.
If their behaviour is something that you don't accept from a male or female then it isn't sex discrimination.
What if (unironically) ugliness is used to justify the firing? "Person X is ugly and ruins morale. They also happen to be trans, but that's not why we fired them. We fired them for being ugly."
Precedent should work fine for this https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9
Edit: To clarify, you'd be able to get away with this at Hooters or a strip club or if you're making a movie or whatever. Probably wouldn't work for traditional businesses.
I replied to the person you replied to.
Ultimately, this ruling means that as a human you have equal rights and your sex/gender can not be discriminated against regardless of what it is.
Do nothing democrat libtards have no idea what they've unleashed and will work very very hard to frame this in a way to hide the reality of it
This ruling completely squashes quota hiring, bias hiring and any type of hiring that uses immutable traits to preferentially select.
All it needs is for someone to send a test case to set the precedent
The entire ruling actually makes specific points of not making it about gender, and instead makes it very clear that a persons gender/sex/identified preference can not be used to deny or give advantage to anyone
This is actually great, as it means that men can use these rulings in places like custody cases, access to gender based programs and anyone charging men more money due to muh wage gap.
I'm seeing far too many people making claims about implications of what this means, but really just pushing an agenda into the commentary.
This video reading by a lawyer is a straight reading of the ruling, with mild commentary.
The video is an hour and a half long, but if you want to understand it, without prestitutes putting a huge amount of agenda and spin on it, this is the way to go.
My takeaway is, the legal concept being used is "but for", as in, but for the sex/gender label this would not happen.
Basically, the ruling means using a persons gender to deny OR GIVE ADVANTAGE is discriminatory and thus not permissible
Too bad he didn't make it apply to race, too. Could have ended Affirmative Action without the Left even realizing it.
"using a person's race to deny or give advantage is discriminatory and thus not permissible" would have shot the Democrats in the face.
This ruling the justices specifically state they are only dealing with sex/gender
To make a ruling on race of a similar type a new case would need to be brought referencing this one as precedence - and I'm sure it would give the same outcome, but it needs to go to court for the specific topic of race
Isn't that what the sex part of the 1964 civil rights act already did?
sure did!
But very few people could be bothered to understand this, bringing about this newer ruling the reinforces the previous rulings but brought up to a modern day understanding
Ultimately this case is just a "yeah the original ruling still holds", but in a legal context it's important as it makes it much harder for special interest groups to argue against it, and makes it much easier for anyone fighting discrimination based on gender (especially if they were denied employment for being male)
Well then, I guess I endorse sex discrimination.
It's not freedom oriented. Private citizens should be able to choose who their associate with. The government has decided, that instead you are OBLIGATED to give your labor (paycheck, product, service, etc) to other people because of their arbitrary characteristics.
And now who they want to fuck or how they dress is a protected characteristic. The Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.
An employer should be able to fire someone for whatever reason they want. Whether it's wearing dresses, farting too much, or just looking at you funny.
Well I'm not exactly sure how that applies to anything that I've said, but I agree with you that we shouldn't do this but I would make one stipulation. I do think Trump was right that we should help people based on class e.g. his healthcare bill provided free care to the poorest American citizens.
I'd be interested in hearing how you think it applies to how people dress or otherwise. What do you think is going to happen? It's not like strip clubs and places like Hooters are going to all of a sudden start being forced to hire trans employees https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9
You said the ruling is freedom oriented. It isn't. It's an extension of the CRA's nullification of freedom of association. Aside from that,
You're asking the wrong question. It's easy not to hire someone. (Although hired enough of NOT some kind of someone and you might get sued.)
The question is firing in this case. The employee "transitioned" after they were hired, then the boss didn't want them to work there anymore. A Hooter's girl could "transition" after being hired. That is where this ruling comes in saying, "Too bad, you can't fire them for changing their appearance because that is sex discrimination." Hooters/etc in particular may have a legal defense, but the vast majority of businesses do not.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but yes Hooters would be able to fire someone who transitioned and they have legal precedent to do so. Yes the ruling is freedom oriented.
Why did you use Hooters as an example and then say it didn't apply to them? lol.
Feel free to give another example :)
These policies do not respect individual rights. It establishes policy in which individual property rights and freedom of speech are subordinate to collective rights.
It is not illegal to dislike gay people or to dislike a race of people. Then why is it illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act? This is a criminalization of thought, similar to hate crime law.
It's the same premise that forces someone to "bake the gay cake". Because it establishes, that in fact, it is legal to deny service, but not deny service while having "bad thoughts."
"Protected classes" (collective rights) are an poison to a society founded on and purporting to defend individual rights.
I don't follow. It's not illegal to dislike someone, and it's also not illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act. You can still have ideas and it certainly isn't criminalizing thought.
The case we are talking about revolves around employment not an artistic form of speech. One is a sex discrimination case and the other is a free speech case.
I don't really mind protected classes. I think if we added a few more we'd all be happy with it 99% of the time.
I'm not really sure what you're worried about. Can you give me a single example?
I’m sorry but males need to act like men, not women. There is a phrase in Latin, "Viriliter age" which means Act Manfully or Act Courageously.
Interesting. Ill have to actually read it now.
Libertarian cuckoldry will be the downfall of our nation
I'm not sure I follow. Libertarianism allows for freedom of association. If you don't want to hire 99 genders, no libertarian would care.
I'm more of a Ron Paul libertarian. People are tribal. Until that changes, borders are necessary.
Like every ideology it’s been infiltrated and subverted.
Gorsuch and Roberts are neocons. Don't put this on us, Libertarians heavily oppose this ruling.
Wait, how the fuck are sanctuary cities constitutional?
This doesnt make any sense
...why? wtf
they didn't find that, they found that states don't have to help the feds enforce a certain law/laws
Whenever you hear something about a SC case, ALWAYS get the info from legal sources. The overview will almost always be sensational bullshit.
how are sanctuary cities de facto constitutional?
they aren't
International disgrace.
Corrupt players in all branches shit all over the Contitution, their oaths, and Americans while enriching themselves, their friends, and their families .. with zero consequences. Sorry to say that Trump has not changed this 3rd world corruption one single bit.
saying that he made it worse is like blaming the person who opened the door recealing the decrpit interior of a visually pleasing house...
It was always this bad...Trump just "revealed" it.
Clarence Thomas is one of the best Supreme Court justices in our history. He understands the Constitution like no one else !
indeed pede
I dont know why all these Democrats and liberals are trying to re-write or do away with the Constitution. Its like a Club. You join the club and they have rules. If you dont like the rules, you dont have to join the club. There are lots of other clubs that have their own rules that might be better suited to what you are looking for. Why join the club where you dont like the rules and then try to change them? Just go somewhere else.
Its a game for them because one kd the rules of our club allows the rules tk be changed by majority vote or court decision...
White male privilege!
And to think, he's just showing up to work and doing his job. Simple as that.
He learned from Thomas Sowell.
And if you end up using that gun in self defense you're fucked.
How’s that? We have the perfect excuse to cover our faces right now. Also, do not carry any smart devices on you when you are armed. Just blast the attacker and leave, how will you be identified?
But is it not better to fight for gun rights in Cali, instead of giving up, so that you don't end up in either of those?
Not if he is on his own property right?
The only thing you say to the cops when they show up is "lawyer". Don't even bother saying that "I was terrified" or "he threatened to kill my baby". Fake being shellshocked or PTSD'd or w/e if you have to.
Nothing you say will make the cops "go away" or make the situation vanish in a puff of smoke. Focus on NOT saying a damned thing. Focus really really hard on NOT trying to talk you way out of this - its not a speeding ticket.
One word.
"Lawyer"
I was reading and agreeing with both of your core points ... One thing key to remember. Make sure your spouse also knows this, and kids if they are older. Can you imagine them saying something dumb unintentionally.. after saving them... Yikes
Amen Patriopede
Yes.
california is open carry????
US Constitution:
Gun rights are explicitly spelled out in th Constitution. 2nd Amendment .. it's right there .. just gotta look it up.
The "right" to murder innocent babies had to be conjured up by evil leftist SCOTUS pols.
Do SCOTUS justices even know what their job is?
Even though this guy is considered the most “right” justice, he is a centrist to me. He merely follows the constitution as its written. Since when is that right wing?!
Precisely. He is not an activist judge; he is simply doing his job: interpreting the Constitution without any pomp and circumstance.
That is anyone wants.Follow the Constitution.
Since it's the opposite of what the shrieking left wants
They tried their best with Thomas, with their "virtual lunching", but that was all they had. He is clean and they can't do shit to him, so he speaks the truth.
Thomas looks like a man who would be enraged by a virtual lunch
I mean, wouldn’t most people...
Haha
Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice.
Selah
We need RBG to "retire "
the day is coming . . .
She is on a weekend at Bernies Vacation. Change My Mind
Seriously.
BAMN
Wishing an old woman's death is wrong, no matter what position she holds. Let's be civil.
He said retire, not die.
That's rather sexist of you. Why can't a woman be held in such high regard?
How many millions of people has she helped kill? If this was Hitler would you be saying to be civil? The whole idea about being civil in politics is moronic.
or be "retired".
Saw this out in the wild, but a no ruling is better then a crappy ruling that could've set back the 2A more then it is already. We have to hang on, vote for Trump in November, and hope he gets another SCOTUS pick in his second term, that way we can get the court in a better position for a positive ruling.
Also, not that we didn't know this already, but Clarence Thomas is a true hero of the people, if there's another silver lining that could be drawn from this.
he gets another SCOTUS pick in his second term
GEOTUS will, and I want National Reciprocity.
Can’t believe we don’t already have this.
You should also be able to move between states without dealing with firearm transfer nonsense.
Also, no tax stamp BS for suppressors or SBRs.
permits from my area are valid in 33 states already, would be good to just have things settled
Love how SD has reciprocity with every state!
Arrest John Roberts
Try for treason
Execute
Watch as President Ray Cyst names the first black Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
I'm starting to think that the reason we're in this mess as a punishment for killing 60 million defenseless babies. Once they get the guns, millions of defenseless adults will probably be killed too. Lord help us, please.
Plenty of adults are being killed as we speak. God save us all.
Yup. You "get the ventilator" if your old and live in a blue state. God help us.
many powerful people high up in gov are sociopaths, closeted gays and pedophiles
TRUTH!
The Title IS Very Confusing. It Looks Like Judge Thomas Is Telling The Liberals on the court to stop being 2 faced. Thomas dissented to SCOTUS’ rejection of the case by reasserting that the Second Amendment protects the “fundamental right…of the people to keep and bear Arms…yet in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so.”
“One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review,” Thomas said. “This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights.”
“And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion,” Thomas said. “But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”
The irony is not lot on me that the only judge we can reliably trust is black.
I don't see the irony?
Blacks vote around 95% Democrats and it's their most reliable voter block by far.
Supreme Court needs a massive clean up...lots of cucks and globalists
In the words of Charles Barkley. TURRIBLE.
It's almost time to burn it all to the ground and start a new
Burn it down.
I need to conserve my "hearing"..
lots of clueless takes on abortion here, Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned end of story
Scotus is garbage. Piece of shit court.
I agree with you. They are allowed to be so by garbage and piece of shit congress.
What law school allows anyone to teach the truth anymore?
He is right, Roberts sucks as much as the idiot who appointed him.
I understand people being personally pro-life and although I hate the idea of banning abortions, I would be pleased if arm implants or IUDs to reduce unplanned pregnancies were available at little or no cost to anyone from whatever age birth control becomes necessary via puberty to whenever pregnancy becomes literally impossible (the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unplanned pregnancies).
But this is a sticky situation in terms of “my body my choice” because if we reject that argument now then they could try to make us take a dangerous vaccine, get unknowingly deceived into some experiment, or get microchipped unless you want to be a 2nd class citizen...
Without the right to life outside of the womb all of the other rights become useless, and yes I am throwing shade at you CCP!
But we can’t take away a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy or personal liberty either. This whole controversy is a no-win situation.
If someone is pregnant and does not want to be a parent at all, but they don’t want an abortion, a transfer portal available to any adoptive family in the US who passes a background check should work (even across state lines) with criteria filter set by adoptive families & birth parents.
And yes, we need to get financial abortion passed in exchange for keeping Roe v Wade (I don’t like how the Feds told the states what to do).
Edit: I don’t blame or judge anyone for getting an abortion or really cast light on the morality of it, but given my hatred for the death penalty, I am not enthusiastic about abortion either (I’m not Catholic) largely because the method of abortion is absolutely painful, cruel, and unusual.
It’s because they don’t trust Roberts. Have faith in the 4 “constitutionalists” on the Court. They would never leave 2A out to dry.
One bad ruling by Roberts and they could gut our rights.
It’s because they don’t trust Roberts.
me either
Just living in Jersey should be justification enough.
Robust presentation of test cases are in order. This requires funding to ensure safety of citizens and to relinquish the habituation of a false narrative.
All I want to know is as a lesbian woman stuck in a man's body can I get on this protected class gravy train and sue anybody?
Where the hell is RBG...
he is gonna get at least one more
Gorsuck strikes again. The left get solid liberal justices we get two real conservatives in 30 years. Scalia Didn't Eat Himself To Death.
Two tiered justice system.
Democrats use voter fraud, so voting doesnt help.
The courts just do whatever Democrats want, regardless of what the law says.
"Republicans" in Congress just do whatever Democrats want.
Serious question: why are we not boogaloo'ing yet? We have no recourse and we've been shown time after time that we won't get any no matter what we do.
AG Barr locks uo boogaloo boys bro didnt you see?
This is severely disappointing.
People keep talking about needing Justices in the mold of Scalia; I'm inclined to think that what we really need are more Justices in the mold of Thomas.
Can't wait for the disingenuous hacks to try to spin this as Clarence Thomas saying that abortion is just as important as 1A or 2A.
I had no idea Clarence Thomas was a white supremacist.
kek
Most people don't even know about that, if there was proper education to all the corruption with plan parenthood and the pressure they put on girls to get abortions it'd be a whole different story.
If there were just some institution or government watchdog who could get the truth out to the masses; some technology that could simultaneously transmit audio and video through the ether, and then onto viewing boxes placed in each home.
I guess I'm just a dreamer, but maybe one day we'll have this in our lives.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't have a strong opinion on first term abortions. I just don't.
But late 2nd and all 3rd term abortions should be illegal imo, and PP MUST BE SHUT DOWN! If an abortion is going to happen, it should be done by first consulting with YOUR GP.
Yeah lets stop worrying about murder. People aren't going to stop.
Stop worrying about the termination of human life you say?
By that logic do you advocate we stop caring about rapes and murders?
How can you not worrying about a fucking holocaust murdering the innocent!?
its cuz they haven't figured out how to word salad away our 2A rights yet.