This isn't a big surprise. If you read the ruling, the mention of maintaining a "domestic supply of infants" is a big part of the white Christian nationalist movement. It's the "great replacement theory" they like to tout.

It's not just about forcing more white people to have babies, but taking them from them. That those who can't have babies are "owed" them from lower class non-Christians.

You see this right now with far-right figures going to Poland to procure white babies from Ukraine who were separated from their families or orphaned by the war.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ren-in-poland/

oh i get it. clarence is dying that's why

I'm sure Uncle Clarence is just fine.

Sexism is sexism. You know darn well what the reaction is here when that kind of language gets used by a public figure.

It has nothing to do with showing respect or diverting from the things she's done. It has to do with some language being inappropriate to use about women period. I mean we either think these kind of descriptions are inappropriate or they aren't.

This isn't a personal thing and people say things all the time that they later regret. To my shame I've said worse things. I'm all for the charity and room to make retractions. But this 'it's ok to be sexist if we really don't like the person we're aiming it at and they've done bad things'?

That's just plain wrong. I rather suspect, though I have no idea if it's a factor in this case, that recent events are causing some people to react more emotionally than usual and suspend their better judgement.

There is nothing sexist about calling her a fat pig. Clarence is one too.

You can bow down to them because they have money, power, or you just like their politics. But they wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

I'm totally flabbergasted by that. Calling a woman a fat pig is pretty much as sexist as it gets. Married With Children had a running gag composed of little other than similar themes. But I accept that you weren't trying to do that.

This has nothing to do with 'bowing down' to anyone. I think I'd have the same reaction, and shame on me if I didn't, if you'd said about your next-door neighbor or someone else not in the halls of power.

My neighbor isn't a treasonous piece of trash who made considerable efforts to invalidate an election and overthrow a democratic government. They also don't relentlessly attack people like me.

I know you're doing your dumb concern trolling shtick, but how does anyone clutch their pearls over these fucking ghouls?

It's not concern trolling. It's what I actually think.


Who the target of the comment is/was is completely, 100% irrelevant. I'm on the record on this already, but I'll repeat it:

** I do not now and literally never have supported Trump's politics
** I'm in favor of people being prosecuted for what happened on Jan. 6
** The kind of approach that led to all that also led to me voting Democrat for the first time, a narrow call over voting third party.

You keep saying things like 'I bow down to them' or pearl-clutching but that's simply not the case.

Cut the bullshit, it's concern trolling. Here's how you feel.


As you said, it's "absolutely appropriate and good for society". All that changed is it's targeted at someone you feel is above the rest of us for some weird reason.

Regardless, it's a dumb derail and I don't give a shit. Give her a gentlemanly hat tip and call her ma'am if it makes you feel better.

Fat shaming = "that crazy fat pig" and "Heck, being a pig probably made her more attractive to Clarence". Yeah, sure, that's what Brian has said (or is the equivalence). smh

I'd say you were doing the trolling. Oh, it's not trolling when its with your bros.


And what is "people like me"?

Possibly tomorrow SCOTUS is going to make fighting climate change impossible.

Or they might gut every regulatory agency.

Not arguing, but for someone that doesn’t follow all the cases, can you elaborate?

27 Republican attorneys general are arguing that the EPA can't make rules, only congress can. Depending on how far SCOTUS goes, that could mean any EPA rule has to have 60 Senate votes and/or every past rule is subject to a court saying it no longer is valid. It could also mean that all the other regulatory agencies are also unable to make rules if the ruling is broad enough.

And keep in mind that in Dobbs Mississippi wasn't even asking for an end to Roe, but SCOTUS did it anyway.

Some solid food for thought in here if you need to ponder the future some more.

18 Ways the Supreme Court Just Changed America - POLITICO

I mean, talk about ending formalized federal government as we know it.

I suppose a best-case scenario is "only" having SCOTUS say the Clean Air Act only applies to particulate pollution and any CO2 regulations need to have a new law as a justification.

Of course, that's impossible with this GOP, so it really seems like any federal efforts to fight climate change will end this week.

This is pretty much what I expect to happen. The GOP have been trying to dismantle/hamstring government since Reagan. Much like the rulings last week that put a final nail in the coffin of the Establishment Clause, gun control legislation, and abortion rights, this will do the same for functioning government. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett were put on the Court by the Federalist Society for a reason.

For those unitiated to how legislation works in the United States, when Congress passes a regaulatory piece of legislation, the billion details of implementation are generally left up to the agency charged in the legislation to do so.

This potential ruling would essentially end that, making rule-making much, much slower to near-impossible if each and every detail has to pass through Congress.

It's an extremely clever way to ensure the federal government can't do anything.

I think Alito is the only republican justice that didn't lie to get confirmed. We've had justices face impeachment proceedings for less.

To add to this, the Court as recently as 2007 ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. So this would reverse precedent from just 15 years ago and clearly show this court gives zero fucks about anything other than what they want.

To be clear, my comment wasn't really about Lathum as much as it was about getting upset over mildly sexist language when the entire fundamentalist Christian attitude about women - which women such as Ginni Thomas fully support and espouse - is far more damaging and sexist.

Good Hillary quote.


Average age of death or retirement is like 78 per another article.

Thomas (74) and Alito (72) are the 2 oldest justices, so conceivably if the Dems win 2024, SCOTUS could swing back the other way.

Somehow, this needs to be like no. 2 or 3 in priority list (after economy) for the Dems.

If only RBG had decided not to literally die on the bench and retired when she was asked during the Obama years. That alone makes my hope that any of the others would retire before they keel over pretty much nil. There's more than enough ego there to keep them going for another decade at least.

We'll disagree on what "mildly" means but good to hear you agree it was sexist.

I get its her politics and her actions that matter. And that is fair game, so attack that.

Let me put it this way. If I was to call progressive favorite Stacey Abrams "a crazy fat pig" you would be okay with that since it is only "mildly sexist"? I'd think the majority of this board would (correctly) crucify me for that.

I agree with this. But I don't think you can put this on her. Everyone expected Hillary to win. Hillary lost and it's not RBG's fault. The majority of the fault belongs to Hillary and complacent voters.

Honestly, I don't really care about sexist or not. It's more about the substance than anything, and there's plenty to criticize there. The same insult hurled at a man is never called sexist, and there's really no need for it (although people are human and those types of insults are easy when people are frustrated).

So to answer your question, if the only criticism you had of Abrams was to call her a crazy fat pig, yeah I'd call that sexist. if you repeatedly criticized her politics and then she did or said something you thought was over the top and you used that insult, I'd be more inclined to say you were just frustrated. Same thing goes with insults thrown at, say, Kellyanne Conway's looks.

As usual, context matters.

I agree. There are far more words/phrases that would be considered sexist when directed to a woman than to a man.


re: "repeatedly criticized her politics .. I'd be more inclined to say you were frustrated" may be true for you but doubt for majority of the progressives here. I would be roundly criticized and called many names (as I should be). Those members would not say "oh, he's just frustrated, let it go".

For the record, I've definitely criticized Kellyanne (and George's) Conway's parental style but never been infantile with her looks.


Agree.

For instance, there's no reason to go after this woman in any way that would be considered sexist when she does all the work herself:

WATCH: Utah, Rep. Karianne Lisonbee

"I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen." BNN Newsroom on Twitter: "WATCH: Utah, Rep. Karianne Lisonbee

"I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen."… https://t.co/CMdRdl2zsR"

It really feels like the R's are angling for a Department of Vice and Virtue. You know who else has a governmental department called that? The Taliban.

We've been heading down the extremist right path for a while now, and it's only accelerating. The Russians have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in that regard.

am I allowed to say she is ugly even for a man...I m amazed Utah would allow someone in drag to be a lawmaker.

:banghead:

So like is there any reason Biden isn't pencil whipping a lot of shit through with executive orders? Not talking about abortion but like...everything esp all the shitty things trump did?

He doesn't give a shit? I mean he flat out said he wasn't going to do anything like that during the campaign. Lived up to his word.

What exactly should Biden be doing with Executive Orders right now?

Sounds more than a bit like "drain the swamp" when you put it that way.

The vast majority of Trump's executive orders didn't do anything. You can't legislate through EOs. You can really only direct the departments of the federal government on how to operate.

Most of the EOs Trump signed were just to keep his base engaged.

warren just floated an idea to have federal land be designated as abortion sites

i don't really believe that. i remember some of them fucked up wildlife and park sites

don't remember him saying that. I mean even obama did that.
this notion that the working government is anything but using loopholes and bully tactics is a fantasy. It seems to be the only way to do anything

That's maybe possible but would definitely be doable. He probably couldn't just allow planned parenthood to build or operate abortion clinics on federal land but he could say prisons and military bases are allowed to perform abortions regardless of state law.

It would be an interesting challenge on both sides. Legally there's nothing that says Biden couldn't do that, but it's also clear this supreme court doesn't care and wanted to end abortions to the best of their ability. It wouldn't shock me if they gutted executive power in a challenge to protect the recent ruling.

I told my wife I'm willing to bet at least 75% of males don't understand how miscarriages' work. It's not like the baby just aborts itself, it sucks, the woman goes to the bathroom, and then it's over. Many times women require abortion pills to force the unviable fetus to abort or they risk sepsis, death, ect.

Sure, if you don't have a clue about how government works at all, or give a shit about what it actually does, or what the actual collapse of it might entail...sure, it's drain the swamp for those people.

Also federal telehealth services and free travel vouchers.

Inside Biden’s Meeting With Civil Rights Leaders

I think Sarah Huckabee Sanders came out as pro choice.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Um. pic.twitter.com/qNsWoxUmJU

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) June 26, 2022

Just to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all.

I can't tell from the tone of your text whether you took my comment as snide or not, so I just want to assure you that it wasn't.

Can someone explain how these states plan on enforcing laws restricting people from anti-abortion states from going to states that allow abortions?

I get it, it's the GOP and fascism and whatever. I mean what legal theory is being used here to justify this? If you're in a state where marijuana is illegal they can't come after you for smoking weed after a trip to Washington or Colorado.

I think Noem today laid out the justification. She was evasive, but she kept coming back to states can do it because of the tenth amendment. I expect that will be the argument, that the federal government has no role, and this SCOTUS will probably agree.

Hawley laid out the strategy of forcing pro abortion people out of red/purple states since they're dems because it strengthens the GOP's advantage in the electoral college. I think that's a driving factor here for some of the laws we'll see.

My wife had one and it required an abortion. It was horrible. She told my 9 year old daughter about it tonight.

Reading more on the actual concurrences from the justices, Kavenaugh makes it clear he will not support laws that restrict people from travelling to other states to get abortions. He specifically mentions it. I'm certain Roberts wouldn't either. So it does look like any laws along those lines will be challengeable. It would probably be an 8-1 or 7-2 ruling with Thomas and maybe Barrett concurring.