It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Wanton, mobocratic violence is not a proper mode of expressing political disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure why you were quoting me there. Were there any Nazis involved in this incident?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Just went back and read the 14th Amendment. I don't see a right to privacy in there, which is an invention of the Supreme Court in ages past (questioning the Court's legitimacy is a bad tactical move, perhaps) and I certainly don't see abortion being part of any such right in the constitutional text. Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism and poor legal reasoning. What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court taketh away. The correction is long overdue. 

The challenge for the pro-life folks (such as myself) is that "Substantive Due Process," the legal doctrine that has been used to "find" unenumerated constitutional rights, has been used to establish rights that we typically want to see recognized, such as access to contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut).  

Justice Thomas does a seemingly good job of explaining why Substantive Due Process is problematic from a legal perspective:

Quote

First, “substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.” ... In practice, the Court’s approach for identifying those “fundamental” rights “unquestionably involves policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis.”  ... The Court divines new rights in line with “its own, extraconstitutional value preferences” and nullifies state laws that do not align with the judicially created guarantees. ... Nowhere is this exaltation of judicial policymaking clearer than this Court’s abortion jurisprudence.  In Roe v. Wade {} the Court divined a right to abortion because it “fe[lt]” that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty” included a “right of privacy” that “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”  In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, {} the Court likewise identified an abortion guarantee in “the liberty protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment,” but, rather than a “right of privacy,” it invoked an ethereal “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” ...

Now, in this case, the nature of the purported “liberty” supporting the abortion right has shifted yet again. Respondents and the United States propose no fewer than three different interests that supposedly spring from the Due Process Clause. They include “bodily integrity,” “personal autonomy in matters of family, medical care, and faith,” {} and “women’s equal citizenship,” {}. That 50 years have passed since Roe and abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake proves the obvious: The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.

Second, substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. For example, once this Court identifies a “fundamental” right for one class of individuals, it invokes the Equal Protection Clause to demand exacting scrutiny of statutes that deny the right to others. ... Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments.

Third, substantive due process is often wielded to “disastrous ends.”   For instance, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, {} the Court invoked a species of substantive due process to announce that Congress was powerless to emancipate slaves brought into the federal territories.   Now today, the Court rightly overrules Roe and Casey --  two of this Court’s “most notoriously incorrect” substantive due process decisions.  The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable. 

However, although I largely agree with Justice Thomas, I think his reasoning here is substantially weakened by his failure to address the benefits that have accrued via Substantive Due Process, perhaps the most notable (relative to Justice Thomas) being Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court nullified anti-miscegenation laws based - at least in part - on Substantive Due Process.  A picture of Justice Thomas and his wife:

Justice Thomas states that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process  precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," that "any substantive due process  decision is 'clearly erroneous,'" and that the Supreme Court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."  Loving is notably absent from his list of "clearly erroneous" precedents to be "reconsider{ed}" and "correct{ed}." 

Loving was also based on the Equal Protection Clause.  And perhaps there is a way to differentiate Loving's "Due Process" reasoning from the "Substantive Due Process" Justice Thomas finds so problematic.  See, e.g., here (arguing that "due process analysis of state intrusion in private family decisions developed largely after Loving," and that "the Loving Court did not have this body of constitutional family law to rely on" because "'{t}here was no federal law norm about the right approach to regulating marriage and divorce before Loving, and thus no substantive principles for the Supreme Court to bring to bear on the few family law cases it heard").

As it is, however, Justice Thomas doesn't address Loving.  At all.  Loving is "fruit" of the Substantive Due Process "tree," and Justice Thomas has personally partaken of it.

And interracial marriage is not the only "fruit" to fall from that tree, either.  We have also seen constitutional rights arise via SDP as pertaining to parenting, contraception, and so on.  From Wikipedia: "{S}ubstantive due process rights continue to be successfully asserted today in non-economic legislation that affects intimate issues like bodily integrity, marriage, religion, childbirth, child-rearing, and sexuality."

Justice Thomas may well be entirely correct that Substantive Due Process is a "clearly erroneous" thing.  But I don't think he can pick and choose among its fruits.  Or if he can, he needs to explain why and how he can differentiate between results he dislikes (such as Roe) and results he (likely) prefers (Loving).

A lot of ink is going to be spilled on this, I think.  And in that ink-spilling there will be quite a bit of debate about Substantive Due Process.  And perhaps that is a debate that needs to be aired.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In the earlier decades of my 52 years of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wondered how it was possible that the following most sobering prophecy could be fulfilled? But after reading all the blasphemous and pitiful wishy washy comments on this thread, I’m no longer in a state of wonder as to why God’ is going to  pour out his terrible judgements of retribution upon his Church first, as an unmistakable sign that the great tribulation of the last days has begun.

23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Original Apostles: Lord, is it I?
Teddyaware: Yep, it is definitely those heretics God will throw on the pyre! Wait, why is it so hot in here all of the sudden?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Here:

Wanton, mobocratic violence is not a proper mode of expressing political disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure why you were quoting me there.

I'm pretty sure you are sure.

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Were there any Nazis involved in this incident?

"Nazi" has long since had its original, intended, technical definition and meaning (that is, "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party") subordinated in favor of a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

So by your usage of the word, I guess the answer would be "yes."

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  Have you considered that the Constitution actually confers broader rights and that states don't have the right to limit due process or the right to privacy?  You know, the 14th amendment and all that?  Have you also considered that the SC issues a ruling in the same week that blatantly contradicts the first amendment?  THe court seems a bit inconsistent.

The SCOTUS has become very politicized.  Mostly due to republican efforts to stack the court with conservatives who do not represent the people of the. US.  The Republican dominated Senate refused to even consider Pres. Obama's court nomination for over a year.  That is nothing more than a dirty political trick.  Rep Susan Collins was lied to by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in a private conversation concerning nominations.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/susan-collins-is-very-sad-brett-kavanaugh-and-neil-gorsuch-lied-to-her-about-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights

 

[OGHoosier]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The challenge for the pro-life folks (such as myself) is that "Substantive Due Process," the legal doctrine that has been used to "find" unenumerated constitutional rights, has been used to establish rights that we typically want to see recognized, such as access to contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut).  

Justice Thomas does a seemingly good job of explaining why Substantive Due Process is problematic from a legal perspective:

However, although I largely agree with Justice Thomas, I think his reasoning here is substantially weakened by his failure to address the benefits that have accrued via Substantive Due Process, perhaps the most notable (relative to Justice Thomas) being Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court nullified anti-miscegenation laws based - at least in part - on Substantive Due Process.  A picture of Justice Thomas and his wife:

Justice Thomas states that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process  precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," that "any substantive due process  decision is 'clearly erroneous,'" and that the Supreme Court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."  Loving is notably absent from his list of "clearly erroneous" precedents to be "reconsider{ed}" and "correct{ed}." 

Loving was also based on the Equal Protection Clause.  And perhaps there is a way to differentiate Loving's "Due Process" reasoning from the "Substantive Due Process" Justice Thomas finds so problematic.  See, e.g., here (arguing that "due process analysis of state intrusion in private family decisions developed largely after Loving," and that "the Loving Court did not have this body of constitutional family law to rely on" because "'{t}here was no federal law norm about the right approach to regulating marriage and divorce before Loving, and thus no substantive principles for the Supreme Court to bring to bear on the few family law cases it heard").

As it is, however, Justice Thomas doesn't address Loving.  At all.  Loving is "fruit" of the Substantive Due Process "tree," and Justice Thomas has personally partaken of it.

And interracial marriage is not the only "fruit" to fall from that tree, either.  We have also seen constitutional rights arise via SDP as pertaining to parenting, contraception, and so on.  From Wikipedia: "{S}ubstantive due process rights continue to be successfully asserted today in non-economic legislation that affects intimate issues like bodily integrity, marriage, religion, childbirth, child-rearing, and sexuality."

Justice Thomas may well be entirely correct that Substantive Due Process is a "clearly erroneous" thing.  But I don't think he can pick and choose among its fruits.  Or if he can, he needs to explain why and how he can differentiate between results he dislikes (such as Roe) and results he (likely) prefers (Loving).

A lot of ink is going to be spilled on this, I think.  And in that ink-spilling there will be quite a bit of debate about Substantive Due Process.  And perhaps that is a debate that needs to be aired.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm aware of the mingled fruit of substantive due process. However, given the fact that the Supreme Court found that abortion is not contained as a constitutional right without signing on to Thomas' solo concurrence, I'm confident that I can state that abortion is not included in the Constitution's litany of rights without signing on to the destruction of substantive due process.

Substantive due process is the creation of the Court, it is true, but the Court has been its own creation since the executive accepted judicial review. Much of what we now view as "constitutional" owes its existence to the Court's decisions, so I don't see much of a difference between "court fiat" and "constitutional" honestly. The Court giveth and the Court taketh away, blessed be the name of the Court.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm pretty sure you are sure.

"Nazi" has long since had its original, intended, technical definition and meaning (that is, "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party") subordinated in favor of a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

So by your usage of the word, I guess the answer would be "yes."

Thanks,

-Smac

I reject your definition and find your projection of it disturbing.

If you took up the hobby of punching fascist white supremacists I am guessing the problem would take care of itself. I highly recommend the activity.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm aware of the mingled fruit of substantive due process. However, given the fact that the Supreme Court found that abortion is not contained as a constitutional right without signing on to Thomas' solo concurrence, I'm confident that I can state that abortion is not included in the Constitution's litany of rights without signing on to the destruction of substantive due process.

Substantive due process is the creation of the Court, it is true, but the Court has been its own creation since the executive accepted judicial review. Much of what we now view as "constitutional" owes its existence to the Court's decisions, so I don't see much of a difference between "court fiat" and "constitutional" honestly. The Court giveth and the Court taketh away, blessed be the name of the Court.

Which makes this nothing more than judicial activism. Single minded voters held their nose while voting based on the promise of justices that would overturn Roe. Until the next court convenes and decides otherwise. Roberts (who values the institution above all else) got this one right. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I reject your definition and find your projection of it disturbing.

I stand corrected, then, and apologize.

When you speak of "punching Nazis," how are you using that term?  How do you define "Nazi?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The SCOTUS has become very politicized.  Mostly due to republican efforts to stack the court with conservatives who do not represent the people of the. US. 

SCOTUS has become very politicized because people apparently want to treat its members as if they "represent the people of the US," as if they are supposed to listen to polls and pressure groups and do what is popular in the moment.  I submit this is wrongheaded, and that the role of the Court is to support and defend the Constitution and impartially administer justice.

Take a look at the oaths the justices take:

Quote

“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

"Represent{ing} the people of the US" is what the legislature does.

SCOTUS has also become very politicized by people throwing accusations at one side, while ignoring their own politicization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2022 by smac97

[Duncan]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/truck-driver-rams-into-protesters-roe-demonstration-in-iowa_n_62b66490e4b0cdccbe6b9399?fbclid=IwAR1znvtj4MXFfywuUBCZ1yJE5yM7HtL8k7Q0ZFWpOEZ3mLmwkKwGzl5a_UM

 

well

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/truck-driver-rams-into-protesters-roe-demonstration-in-iowa_n_62b66490e4b0cdccbe6b9399?fbclid=IwAR1znvtj4MXFfywuUBCZ1yJE5yM7HtL8k7Q0ZFWpOEZ3mLmwkKwGzl5a_UM

 

well

I’m sorry but this can’t be right. This goes against my narrative that only leftists are violent thugs. 🤔

I’m sure SMAC was about to post this one. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In the earlier decades of my 52 years of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wondered how it was possible that the following most sobering prophecy could be fulfilled? But after reading all the blasphemous and pitiful wishy washy comments on this thread, I’m no longer in a state of wonder as to why God’ is going to  pour out his terrible judgements of retribution upon his Church first, as an unmistakable sign that the great tribulation of the last days has begun.

23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

The house of God isn't the body of the Church.

You know what the House of the Lord is.  That's where it will begin.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/truck-driver-rams-into-protesters-roe-demonstration-in-iowa_n_62b66490e4b0cdccbe6b9399?fbclid=IwAR1znvtj4MXFfywuUBCZ1yJE5yM7HtL8k7Q0ZFWpOEZ3mLmwkKwGzl5a_UM

 

well

 

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry but this can’t be right. This goes against my narrative that only leftists are violent thugs. 🤔

Plenty of violence on both sides.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/abc-touts-abortion-groups-report-warning-rise-violence-ignores-attacks-pro-life-clinics.amp

Edited June 25, 2022 by JLHPROF

[OGHoosier]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which makes this nothing more than judicial activism. Single minded voters held their nose while voting based on the promise of justices that would overturn Roe. Until the next court convenes and decides otherwise. Roberts (who values the institution above all else) got this one right. 

What does "judicial activism" even mean in a world where it is a justice's expected duty to rule on what constitutes rights in the first place? One of the Court's roles and duties is to rule on the extent of enumerated rights. The First and Second Amendments are not held to be absolute, so it falls to the Court to rule on the extent of their protections. This is before you even get into the litany of rights encompassed in the "substantive due process" category. It is unavoidable that the Supreme Court will dictate terms not specifically enumerated in the Constitution based on principles which belong to traditions outside the Constitution itself. How is this not judicial activism? 

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I stand corrected, then, and apologize.

When you speak of "punching Nazis," how are you using that term?  How do you define "Nazi?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Fascists and White Supremacists. Punch three in a day for a hat trick.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I reject your definition and find your projection of it disturbing.

If you took up the hobby of punching fascist white supremacists I am guessing the problem would take care of itself. I highly recommend the activity.

 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fascists and White Supremacists. Punch three in a day for a hat trick.

 

"Fascist" and "White Supremacy" have also mostly had their original, intended, technical definitions and meanings (as in "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism {a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism} and "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society") subordinated in favor of, again, a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

There is considerable irony in decrying "fascism" while in the very act of advocating and celebrating one of its central tenets ("forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

Just now, smac97 said:

"Fascist" and "White Supremacy" have also had their original, intended, technical definitions and meanings (as in "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism {a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism} and "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society") subordinated in favor of, again, a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

Thanks,

-Smac

So words are all meaningless and you project this meaninglessness? So we are trapped in a recursive loop where I now define fascists and you insist the words I use have no definition so I get to define those too in the hopes I can find one term that has a fixed meaning for you?

Nah, I think I will take a different route and act as if what you are saying is not nonsense and see where it takes us.

smac97 is a fascist and a white supremacist who believes in Replacement Theory. He also eats live puppies with his eyes wide open staring at them the whole time while consuming them.

This could mean anything. I might just be saying he makes really good toffee. Who can say for sure?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure why you were quoting me there. Were there any Nazis involved in this incident?

Not sure about Nazis, but there were domestic terrorists.

The woman sprayed, was surrounded by the terrorists, then one of the terrorist sprayed a substance that was orange in color.

There is also videos from last night of terrorists attacking police. One used a can of spray paint and a lighter to create a flame that was directed within inches of a police officers face.

 

And then there is the Arizona Legislator that was attacked.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So words are all meaningless

Not to me.  Words become meaningless when they are severed from their meaning.

Which is what you are doing when you arbitrarily label anyone with whom you have a political disagreement as a "Nazi" or "fascist white supremacist."

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and you project this meaninglessness?

I am not projecting meaninglessness.  I am criticizing it.  And I am doing so by pointing to the dictionary.

I am saying that there are people who use words like "Nazi" and "fascist" and "white supremacy" for for their actual meaning, but rather for their pejorative value.

In civil society, wanton mobocratic violence as a form of political disagreement is wrong.  But then along comes a guy who says "Nothing wrong with punching Nazis," and that "Nazis" are "fascist white supremacists."  These epithets are being misused in pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan ways.  These epithets are being applied to anyone the violent mobocrat wants to physically assault.  Anyone at all, for any reason or not reason at all.  And these epithets are being used to justify that wanton violence.

This is bad.  And I think it is particularly bad when mouthed by a member of the Church (I honestly can't recall whether you are or not, but my surmise is that you are).  To again quote Pres. Oaks in 2020:

Quote

We live in a time of anger and hatred in political relationships and policies. We felt it this summer when some went beyond peaceful protests and engaged in destructive behavior. We feel it in some current campaigns for public offices. Unfortunately, some of this has even spilled over into political statements and unkind references in our Church meetings.

In a democratic government we will always have differences over proposed candidates and policies. However, as followers of Christ we must forgo the anger and hatred with which political choices are debated or denounced in many settings.
...

When adversaries sought to trap Him with a question about whether Jews should pay taxes to Rome, He pointed to the image of Caesar on their coins and declared, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s” (Luke 20:25).

So, we are to follow the laws of men (render unto Caesar) to live peacefully under civil authority, and we follow the laws of God toward our eternal destination. But how do we do this—especially how do we learn to love our adversaries and our enemies?

The Savior’s teaching not to “contend with anger” is a good first step. The devil is the father of contention, and it is he who tempts men to contend with anger. He promotes enmity and hateful relationships among individuals and within groups. President Thomas S. Monson taught that anger is “Satan’s tool,” for “to be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan. No one can make us angry. It is our choice.” Anger is the way to division and enmity. We move toward loving our adversaries when we avoid anger and hostility toward those with whom we disagree. It also helps if we are even willing to learn from them.
...
An essential part of loving our enemies is to render unto Caesar by keeping the laws of our various countries. Though Jesus’s teachings were revolutionary, He did not teach revolution or lawbreaking. He taught a better way. Modern revelation teaches the same:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22).

And our article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith after the early Saints had suffered severe persecution from Missouri officials, declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).

This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.

Unfortunately, I don't really have any expectation of persuading you to turn from your advocacy of extralegal, mobocratic violence.  But I hope that other Latter-day Saints who may be tempted to follow you down that path might instead choose to listen to the counsel of Pres. Oaks.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

smac97 is a fascist and a white supremacist who believes in Replacement Theory.

I utterly reject and condemn both fascism and white supremacy.  I've never heard of "Replacement Theory," so I looked it up.  I utterly reject and condemn it, too.

I have never espoused any of these things, but you are publicly accusing me of being these things.  Not because that is true, but because you want to insult and defame and provoke.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He also eats live puppies with his eyes wide open staring at them the whole time while consuming them.

This could mean anything. I might just be saying he makes really good toffee. Who can say for sure?

I am genuinely glad that I do not know who you are, and I hope you do not live near me.  You publicly (and, I think, sincerely) advocate for / endorse / justify / celebrate wanton, extralegal, mobocratic violence against "Nazis" and "fascist white supremacists," and here you are labeling me as being within those categories (literally: "smac97 is a fascist and a white supremacist"), and hence I am now - in your view - a legitimate target of the violence you are advocating.

Ugly stuff.

You are only proving my point.  You are using these words for their pejorative value, not their descriptive value.

You are using these words to justify and rationalize wanton violence against people you dislike.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2022 by smac97

[bsjkki]

 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not to me.  Words become meaningless when they are severed from their meaning.

Which is what you are doing when you arbitrarily label anyone with whom you have a political disagreement as a "Nazi" or "fascist white supremacist."

CFR! CFR!! CFR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, provoman said:

Not sure about Nazis, but there were domestic terrorists.

The woman sprayed, was surrounded by the terrorists, then one of the terrorist sprayed a substance that was orange in color.

There is also videos from last night of terrorists attacking police. One used a can of spray paint and a lighter to create a flame that was directed within inches of a police officers face.

 

And then there is the Arizona Legislator that was attacked.

Amazing. I could more than double the number of incidents and somehow you only found the ones where one side was at fault or is believed to be at fault. You may want to consider broadening your choice of news sources.

[CV75]

There are several states which neither ban nor protect abortion, which seems to leave the matter up to the exercise of individual conscience, support for the practice in the form of medical practice regulation and social service networks.

[cipriano]

When are lawmakers going to address the other half of this issue? These ladies aren't impregnating themselves!

If the woman must carry to term against her will, then the father should ___________________?

castration, loss of voting rights, loss of 2nd amendment rights (that would get their attention), 200k fine, a stern talking to? What's the answer?