American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[San Lumen]

I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.

What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.

What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

easy:

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

[The Black Forrest]

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

Welllll…..I haven’t heard one yet (only 3/4s of the way through). Basically; they are trying to save major problems for scotus by eliminating a very unconstituional thing and if they tossed it can cassey things will go back ot the people so they can come together and find solutions for everybody.

Ahhhh what now? It’s laughable as the people really can’t solve much these days.

So far I can see 2 yes votes. There is one male voice I don’t recognize who seemed rather hostile to the pro-choice gal. Possibly three.

[San Lumen]

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

[American Legionaries]

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

I wonder rather the backlash would be countered by the fervor on the other side.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.

[San Lumen]

What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

easy:

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

Still waiting for your legal argument.

The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.

What the heck does this mean?

[Arlenton]

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

If the Supreme Court were to ban abortion because the sun orbits the earth, I don't think they'd care too much about public opinion.

[American Legionaries]

easy:

Still waiting for your legal argument.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.

What the heck does this mean?

I believe "the sun orbits Earth" is their legal argument.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

[The Black Forrest]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

I would be more concerned if they were elected.

[Comerciante]

It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.

What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? On what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

You seem to be missing the point... or are too literal for your own good.

I'm never going to say you are not a person.

I'm just going to make your ability to exercise your rights as a person incredibally difficult, the same way Republicans are trying to add limitations to a person's ability to vote.

I'm essentially going to price gouge the value of freedom making it so the price of exercising such rights is so ridiculously high that it becomes no different than having no rights at all.

[San Lumen]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

[San Lumen]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.

[American Legionaries]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

Don't worry, if you disagree with their decision, you can appeal the ruling to the Extra Supreme Court.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.

Oh you poor naïve child.

[Arlenton]

easy:

Still waiting for your legal argument.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.

What the heck does this mean?

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

[Arlenton]

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

And by our nation's longstanding tradition of determining what is constitutional or not, trying to stop them would be violating the US Constitution.

[San Lumen]

Still waiting for your legal argument.



What the heck does this mean?

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

Understand this:
Six. Of. Them. Does. Not. Fucking. Bloody. Care.

[American Legionaries]

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

What are you going to do about it though?

[Arlenton]

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

[San Lumen]

There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.

Oh you poor naïve child.

I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Oh you poor naïve child.

I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

They could and nobody would be able to stop them short of laying siege to the SCOTUS building.