There should be no weapon transfers to Ukraine

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/8/2022 at 11:10 AM, I_M4_AU said:

What would you label this action?

“THE RIGHT … TO EAT DINNER”— On Wednesday night, D.C. protesters targeting the conservative Supreme Court justices who signed onto the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion got a tip that Justice BRETT KAVANAUGH was dining at Morton’s downtown D.C. location. Protesters soon showed up out front, called the manager to tell him to kick Kavanaugh out and later tweeted that the justice was forced to exit through the rear of the restaurant.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/08/schumer-ups-pressure-on-mcconnell-in-usica-reconciliation-dance-00044652?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=00000159-fa3d-d147-a3ff-fe3d788a0001&nlid=630318

A protest isn’t accurate as they forced the restaurant to evacuate a patron due to some sort of implied threat.

Is this grass root communism?

It surely isn’t a belief in our system of government or the rule of law.

Pete addresses this more eloquently than I ever could.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Didba

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

5 hours ago, Didba said:

Pete addresses this more eloquently than I ever could

Mayor Pete is one heck of a politician.  He says as long as I have been alive abortion has been a right, which screams his view point is anythibng that happened before he was born was just rumor, not fact.

He says protesting is what Americans do and violence and intimidation crosses the line.  What would he call the *protesters* calling ehe restaurant manager and demanding he throw Kavanaugh out of the restaurant?  That seems like intimidation to me, they are intimating the restaurant to decide if Kavanaugh’s business is worth what might happen next.

There was also nothing mentioned that a liberal (commie) from California attempted to assasinate Kavanaugh just weeks ago.  Do you think that might have been on his mind when the manager requested him to leave with his family.  Yeah, that would be intimidation, but only Pete and his minions (you) can’t see this.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Mayor Pete is one heck of a politician.  He says as long as I have been alive abortion has been a right, which screams his view point is anythibng that happened before he was born was just rumor, not fact.

He says protesting is what Americans do and violence and intimidation crosses the line.  What would he call the *protesters* calling ehe restaurant manager and demanding he throw Kavanaugh out of the restaurant?  That seems like intimidation to me, they are intimating the restaurant to decide if Kavanaugh’s business is worth what might happen next.

There was also nothing mentioned that a liberal (commie) from California attempted to assasinate Kavanaugh just weeks ago.  Do you think that might have been on his mind when the manager requested him to leave with his family.  Yeah, that would be intimidation, but only Pete and his minions (you) can’t see this.

 

Just keep Kavanaugh in your thoughts and prayers, and maybe this coming weekend he'll be able to enjoy his 5 star steak dinner in peace. When you sexually assaulty women in college, lie in your confirmation hearing, and then vote to allow States to strip rights away from millions then the common rabble does tend to become kind of 'uppity' 

Edited July 12, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

36 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Just keep Kavanaugh in your thoughts and prayers, and maybe this coming weekend he'll be able to enjoy his 5 star steak dinner in peace. When you sexually assaulty women in college, lie in your confirmation hearing, and then vote to allow States to strip rights away from millions then the common rabble does tend to become kind of 'uppity' 

I will keep him and his family in my prayers, you really didn’t have to remind me.

As to the rest, he was confirmed and did not lie about abortion as it was the law of the land at the time he was asked that question, just like Jackson said the 2nd amendment is the law of the land when she was asked about that.

The vote was to send the question about abortion back to the states as it was 50 years ago, now it is up to each individual states to come up with their own rules.  There should be some give and take like we see in Virginia, you know bipartisan.

Instead of *uppity* it seems it should be *unruly*.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 7/8/2022 at 12:10 PM, I_M4_AU said:

What would you label this action?

“THE RIGHT … TO EAT DINNER”— On Wednesday night, D.C. protesters targeting the conservative Supreme Court justices who signed onto the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion got a tip that Justice BRETT KAVANAUGH was dining at Morton’s downtown D.C. location. Protesters soon showed up out front, called the manager to tell him to kick Kavanaugh out and later tweeted that the justice was forced to exit through the rear of the restaurant.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/08/schumer-ups-pressure-on-mcconnell-in-usica-reconciliation-dance-00044652?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=00000159-fa3d-d147-a3ff-fe3d788a0001&nlid=630318

A protest isn’t accurate as they forced the restaurant to evacuate a patron due to some sort of implied threat.

Is this grass root communism?

It surely isn’t a belief in our system of government or the rule of law.

I would label it as inappropriate, but no harm done. 

It's also the sort of protest that might be expected, considering Kavanaugh's his ruling eliminated a basic right that women have enjoyed for 50 years.

And it has nothing to do with "communism" - as well as being totally unrelated to the fascist tendencies of the Republican Party, which is the topic at hand.

Edited July 12, 2022 by homersapien

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Mayor Pete is one heck of a politician.  He says as long as I have been alive abortion has been a right, which screams his view point is anythibng that happened before he was born was just rumor, not fact.

He says protesting is what Americans do and violence and intimidation crosses the line.  What would he call the *protesters* calling ehe restaurant manager and demanding he throw Kavanaugh out of the restaurant?  That seems like intimidation to me, they are intimating the restaurant to decide if Kavanaugh’s business is worth what might happen next.

There was also nothing mentioned that a liberal (commie) from California attempted to assasinate Kavanaugh just weeks ago.  Do you think that might have been on his mind when the manager requested him to leave with his family.  Yeah, that would be intimidation, but only Pete and his minions (you) can’t see this.

So you are imputing the actions of a crazy person onto protesters outside of a restaurant?

Your first paragraph doesnt even make sense.

The rest of it is just ironic.  You guys are all about free speech up until is free speech y'all don't like then it's intimidation.

Jan 6, man. You don't get to get all upset about this Kavanaugh situation and then turn around and say the Jan 6 peeps were just peaceful protesters.

Free speech is a pretty broad clause it defends conduct that 99% of people will say isn't worth protecting. A great example is Westboro Baptist Church protesting peacefully outside soldier's funerals. Free speech clause still protects it, unfortunately.

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

8 minutes ago, Didba said:

So you are imputing the actions of a crazy person onto protesters outside of a restaurant?

Your first paragraph doesnt even make sense.

The rest of it is just ironic.  You guys are all about free speech up until is free speech y'all don't like then it's intimidation.

Jan 6, man. You don't get to get all upset about this Kavanaugh situation and then turn around and say the Jan 6 peeps were just peaceful protesters.

Free speech is a pretty broad clause it defends conduct that 99% of people will say isn't worth protecting. A great example is Westboro Baptist Church protesting peacefully outside soldier's funerals. Free speech clause still protects it, unfortunately.

So, lawyer to be, when does peaceful protests cross the line?  Yes, I would imagine the Kavanaugh family did think about a crazy assassin’s actions while deciding what to do when the manager requested them to leave the restaurant.  The simple fact Kavanaugh didn’t call for the police or FBI shows he must not have been too worried.  He or the manager was intimidated to leave the restaurant.

If Mayor Pete can’t look at the entirety of history about abortion and only go back to when he was born for his opinion, he certainly can’t intelligently discuss the constitution.  He is playing to people like yourself who agree with his every word and can’t look at it critically.

Free speech’s in the summer of 2020 on occasion spilled into intimidation by the fact police and National Guard troops failed to engage.  Violence occurred  in those peaceful protests.  The same thing happened on Jan 6th when police failed too engage and violence ensued. 

I hope the perpetrators will be caught and prosecuted for all peaceful protesters that break the law.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I will keep him and his family in my prayers, you really didn’t have to remind me.

As to the rest, he was confirmed and did not lie about abortion as it was the law of the land at the time he was asked that question, just like Jackson said the 2nd amendment is the law of the land when she was asked about that.

 

He said it was settled law that had been confirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court and he respected it as settled law.

His later actions proved that not to be true. 

you've also got the words of Collins and Manchin who say they had private conversations with Kavanaugh and believe he was misleading/lying about his beliefs and intentions on RoevWade 

 

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The vote was to send the question about abortion back to the states as it was 50 years ago, now it is up to each individual states to come up with their own rules.  There should be some give and take like we see in Virginia, you know bipartisan.

Instead of *uppity* it seems it should be *unruly*.

Great can't wait to send the issue of gay marriage and civil rights back to the States like it was 50 years ago. 

 

States like Alabama can finally go back to separate water fountains for whites and Blacks as their cultural and historical heritage dictates. 

 

unrestricted States rights are such a great thing! Never been an issue before! 

Edited July 12, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

He said it was settled law that had been confirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court and he respected it as settled law.

His later actions proved that not to be true. 

you've also take the words of Collins and Manchin who say they had private conversations with Kavanaugh and believe he was misleading/lying about his beliefs and intentions on RoevWade 

 

 

Great can't wait to send the issue of gay marriage and civil rights back to the States like it was 50 years ago. 

 

States like Alabama can finally go back to separate water fountains for whites and Blacks as their cultural and historical heritage dictates. 

 

unrestricted States rights are such a great thing! Never been an issue before! 

Maybe Collins and Manchin didn’t understand the meaning of *settled law* as Kavanaugh stated?

Senator Susan Collins of Maine reported that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, had assured her that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case affirming a woman’s constitutional right to choose abortion, was “settled law.” The implication was that Collins, who has indicated support for a right to choose, could vote for his confirmation without worrying about Roe or women’s reproductive rights.

Does it mean that? I haven’t been able to find a clear definition of the term, but in 1976, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The Court seldom takes a case merely to reaffirm settled law.”

So maybe there’s a functional definition. “Settled law” means law the Court hasn’t decided to overturn just yet.

The Supreme Court nominee’s judicial record suggests he means only that Roe v. Wade hasn’t yet been overturned, not that it can’t be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaughs-unsettling-use-of-settled-law/569212/

The majority consent stated specifically that the issues you mentioned were not to be considered.  I know Clarence Thomas mentioned them, but the other conservative justices didn’t.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Maybe Collins and Manchin didn’t understand the meaning of *settled law* as Kavanaugh stated?

Senator Susan Collins of Maine reported that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, had assured her that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case affirming a woman’s constitutional right to choose abortion, was “settled law.” The implication was that Collins, who has indicated support for a right to choose, could vote for his confirmation without worrying about Roe or women’s reproductive rights.

Does it mean that? I haven’t been able to find a clear definition of the term, but in 1976, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The Court seldom takes a case merely to reaffirm settled law.”

So maybe there’s a functional definition. “Settled law” means law the Court hasn’t decided to overturn just yet.

The Supreme Court nominee’s judicial record suggests he means only that Roe v. Wade hasn’t yet been overturned, not that it can’t be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaughs-unsettling-use-of-settled-law/569212/

I don't know exactly what was or wasn't said between them in their private conversations. I just know Collins and Manchin have come out and said they believe Kavanaugh misled them. 

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The majority consent stated specifically that the issues you mentioned were not to be considered.  I know Clarence Thomas mentioned them, but the other conservative justices didn’t.

They said those other issues aren't to be considered in the context of the RoevWade decision. They didn't say they don't plan to eventually re-examine them and possibly rule in the same way. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

6 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

They said those other issues aren't to be considered in the context of the RoevWade decision. They didn't say they don't plan to eventually re-examine them and possibly rule in the same way. 

I don’t think they would unless some state tries to bring a case involving those issues and the SCOTUS decides to hear it.  Highly unlikely IMO.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think they would unless some state tries to bring a case involving those issues and the SCOTUS decides to hear it.  Highly unlikely IMO.

A lot of very educated people had said for years and years that it was very highly unlikely that RoevWade ever gets overturned.

Yet here we are.

 

States like Tennessee still have State laws on the books that say the State of Tennessee doesn't recognize marriages between Gay people. Federal law affirmed by the Supreme Court are the only reason that do now. You don't think Christian Republicans wont try to bring cases to the Supreme Court, you don't think Clarence Thomas wouldn't be able to convince his gang of Federalist society Bros to hear it?

I'd be surprised if they didn't choose to take up the case frankly.

[Didba 5,256]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think they would unless some state tries to bring a case involving those issues and the SCOTUS decides to hear it.  Highly unlikely IMO.

Very likely. Thomas basically begged for more court cases on privacy rights in the concurrence.

[Didba 5,256]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, lawyer to be, when does peaceful protests cross the line?  Yes, I would imagine the Kavanaugh family did think about a crazy assassin’s actions while deciding what to do when the manager requested them to leave the restaurant.  The simple fact Kavanaugh didn’t call for the police or FBI shows he must not have been too worried.  He or the manager was intimidated to leave the restaurant.

If Mayor Pete can’t look at the entirety of history about abortion and only go back to when he was born for his opinion, he certainly can’t intelligently discuss the constitution.  He is playing to people like yourself who agree with his every word and can’t look at it critically.

Free speech’s in the summer of 2020 on occasion spilled into intimidation by the fact police and National Guard troops failed to engage.  Violence occurred  in those peaceful protests.  The same thing happened on Jan 6th when police failed too engage and violence ensued. 

I hope the perpetrators will be caught and prosecuted for all peaceful protesters that break the law.

[homersapien 11,362]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

Very likely. Thomas basically begged for more court cases on privacy rights in the concurrence.

Well. except for miscegenation of course.