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.

I'm sorry she had to go through that. I've been reading horror stories from women on this and it's heartbreaking.

A 18th Century DIY German Abortion Kit

Thanks. It was a rough time for sure but we now have an amazing 9 year old spitfire of a daughter so it was all worth it.

Some post-Dobbs movement on my PredictIt bet for Dems to keep Senate control. It has moved from .25 to .30 over the last couple days.

The recent conversations have convinced me that I'm doing more harm than good posting here and that it's probably not best for my mental health either. Taking an indefinite and possibly permanent break. I wish all of you well.

Our congress in action: between now and labor day (10 weeks) the house will only have 12 days of work, and the Senate will have 16.

Best on your mental health. Drop by once in a while

It's a single poll, close to a major event, but a Marist poll has the generic ballot going from 44D-47R to 48D-41R.

I want to see this replicated before I buy it, but I do think Dobbs makes a lot of the polling done so far invalid. We'll have to see how much the new abortion landscape matters for November.

The gun and EPA decisions also just further establish that this is a runaway right-wing court.

I saw the tweet. That was a bit of selective data. They showed the change from April to June, but May was 47D-42R. Now, maybe that already baked in the impact of Roe based on the leaked opinion, but the needle hasn't moved much more since May.

So would the federal government be able to withhold funding, such as medicare or medicade, from states that refuse to provide access to safe abortions?

I'm skeptical until we see this replicated in other polling, I just think that Dobbs is going to make a hash of pre-decision polling.

How about a Catholic Taliban?

White nationalist Nick Fuentes rejoices that in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has laid out a blueprint for banning gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception and imposing "Catholic Taliban rule": "We're having something like Taliban rule in America, in a good way!" pic.twitter.com/ZhSxZMBTIh

— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) June 27, 2022

The EPA one is going to be so weird. Genuinely curious to see how they try to explain it. The case is against a policy that actually doesn't exist. And they are trying to use legal doctrine that doesn't exist in this country.

I don't think I've ever seen a ruling like that before in my life.

First poll is out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/america...ll-2022-06-26/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/polit...oll/index.html

In the CBS article that had specific questions/results, thought this question was interesting. Wonder if it'll really play out this way.

Definitely think its good for some companies willing to assist their employees with logistics (and assume some funding) so they can travel and have "safe" abortions if they choose. Then there's other companies that are a no, which is okay also as they are willing to bear the consequences with their workforce and customers.

For those companies willing to support, not sure if they have really thought out all the details like the one below.

Tech Companies Won't Say If They’ll Give Cops Abortion Data

If this decision pushes women to come out and vote it will be very bad for the right.

Makes it a lot easier when you don't care about the law or consistency and just use whatever you find to justify what you want to do.

Considering they're more than happy to sell us out for everything else, why would this be any different?

SI

That was my thought, too - more specifically, the suburban women vote

Dems would be positioned to better take advantage of this if they could form a plan that's more detailed than "Roe v Wade is on the ballot in November".

I don't know where to put this, but they just 42 people dead inside a tractor-trailer outside of San Antonio.

I mean the WH said today that Biden is going around the country to talk about fighting inflation.

When the American fascists finally fall, historians will have a great time trying to understand how we let it happen.

Pelosi is going to have the House vote on a bunch of shit that will never be voted on in Senate to show the differences between Dems and GOP on this issue.

I'm pretty sure everyone already knows where both sides stand. What they're waiting for is for dems to explain how they're going to fight back. Ya know, instead of roll over like they do on everything else.

This might be one of the most thoughtful takes on overturning Roe that I've seen yet...and it's from one of the former Operation Rescue guys who walked away from the movement.

Fmr. Pro-Life Leader on Abortion Ruling: Our Movement Has Lost its Soul | Amanpour and Company - YouTube

Worth a listen if you're into longer form video journalism.

I thought that might be the case, which is why I purposely didn't include you in the statement.

That is just brutal.

If that driver did leave illegals up in his trailer like that, I hope they crucify him. Article did not say but assume it was locked trailer.

This won't help the domestic supply...

Byproduct of KY's abortion ban:

A Lexington OB-GYN told me this morning that yesterday, alone, her clinic got *91* appointment requests from women wishing to get surgically sterilized (tubes tied). Said that's far & away the most, ever. Tubals are permanent birth control.

— Alex Acquisto (@AcquistoA) June 28, 2022

Re the SC decision on the praying coach…

In Florida now can a teacher teach whatever the F they want in contradiction of the recently passed laws controlling what they can or cannot teach?

Then also can the religion/passing occur in the classroom?

What if it’s Muslim prayer?

I’m trying to extrapolate out the unforeseen consequences of the blending of church and state at schools now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, because the court said the coach wasn't acting in his official duties and he wasn't encouraging others to pray. Now that's bullshit based on the available evidence, but they would find a way to distinguish this case from a teacher who taught a BLM lesson in Florida.

Even if it's the same exact circumstances for a Muslim coach, I bet they'd come up with some bullshit justification about how the prayer rug is visual and thus less private than a Christian prayer.

Muslim football coaches weren't a thing in 1680 England, so...

I'm totally sure it'll be fine for a Muslim coach to lay his mat down on the 50 yrd line and invite his team to pray with him after their games now. Surely, it'll be accepted by everyone in Texas as ok.

I really think we are blurring the lines here. Outside of an elective religion based course (seminary in the Mormon faith, which takes place before regular school hours IIRC) Religion should never be taught in public schools in conjunction with core curriculum. If a school wanted to offer CRT as an elective, at the the appropriate learning level (remember CRT is a graduate level course) they should be allowed to.

What this coach was doing is akin to an elective class, after the main 'course work' I.E football game is over. He did not invite, encourage or coerce players to join him. Just like you see collegiate and pro football players often kneel together after games. There is zero indication looking at this case, that the coach forced anybody to participate, it was his thing, which many of us that coach have little quirks associated with game night.

I have been on staffs that recited the Lords prayer after games and staffs that don't pray. In the former players were not required to participate. In fact at North Canyon 20 years ago we had a Muslim kid who would stand respectfully outside the circle and nobody said a thing. In fact a couple of us started standing next to him so he was not isolated. No big deal IMO and again, just my way of looking at it based on what I know. Especially when there are much more serious things being attacked like Roe and most likely soon to be contraception and gay marriage. I just don't see this ruling having the same widespread, damaging effect as other potential rulings out there.

Edit: And yes, once you let this Genie out of the bottle, it better be damn sure okay for any coach of any religious belief to do the same thing.

The problem is it still happened at an official school function on school properties while carrying out his duty to the school. Would it be OK for a science teacher to recite a prayer prior to a test?

I get what you’re saying about kids choosing to not participate, but cmon, peer pressure is a strong thing.

The school received a complaint that it was making one of the players uncomfortable and they requested he move his prayer from the field to a more private area. He initially agreed, but after doing a big media tour which landed him on Good Morning America and other TV shows he came back and said he wasn't going to stop doing it at midfield. With the added media attention he brought on himself it started drawing the big crowds.

IMO when it comes to prayer while conducing your official duties for the school and especially on school property all it takes is one complaint and you knock it off or take it elsewhere.

Have you seen the pictures? He's facing kids and leading them in prayer. That's just ridiculously inappropriate. Even if the coach never ordered somebody to do it or took action against a player for not joining, there's no way of knowing how it made specific players feel.


And this is ridiculously inappropriate as well. I know it goes on regularly, but it's 100% wrong. That's great that some of you stood by him so he didn't feel excluded, but it's still a public way to demonstrate that he's different from other players on the team. And you never know how many players joined those prayers because they were afraid of being benched or just being picked on by their teammates for being different.


But it won't be. You get that, right? Even if SCOTUS is consistent here, which I doubt, public pressure would never allow a Muslim coach to do the same thing in many communities.

In regards to the first paragraph, I get the pressure point, but I am going off the story I read, where he went off by himself and other players came to join him, not him standing in front of the entire team and starting to pray.

In regards to the second point, I get that too, but fuck those people, you either have freedom or you don't and it can't be selective. I would love to see the lawsuits that would arise from that. Then you are going against the intent of the 1st amendment.

Again, I know religion is a heated topic and I am not really that religious, nor am I specifically against it, as long as the rules are consistent. So maybe that causes me to look at it a little more passively. I just think there are a lot bigger fish to fry.

As I mentioned, that is not the whole team and includes players from the other team too.

Also, in context, I have never seen teams meet post game as a unit at midfield in 30+ years of coaching. We always go to our respective end zones, both teams talk to their kids and leave. If this is him going to mid field and some of his players and some from the other team joining him there, not that big a deal, sorry, just my opinion.

And dola, I want to make it clear, I do not think it is wise, nor completely respectful to do this anyway in todays social climate. It is after all a Football game, not a church service and views have changed a great deal since i got into coaching. It is why we don't do it where I am at now. I am merely offering an opinion on my thoughts about where this stacks up against other social issues.

Then I'm not sure the whole point of this digression, which seemed to be defending what the coach did. If your whole point is that the Roe decision is more worrisome than this one, I don't know who you're arguing against. I think that's where most people here would fall, but we can be mad/upset at more than one thing at a time.

My daughter's high school softball team did the Lord's prayer before every game, no coaches involved. After games, I'd say about a quarter of the time, the other team would gather around the pitching circle, with coaches, and some/most of our girls would join for some sort of prayer.

Pretty common here, and of course, no one is going to speak up about it even if they objected. But no one was forced to participate and our coaches weren't involved (except one I can recall doing the after game circle).

Performative religion is performative.

Again, the only inappropriate part here is when any coaches joined. Students are free to pray whenever they want, including during school hours as long as it is not disruptive. The whole point is official government endorsement of religion, which should be completely avoided.

That was just a reference point, as stated I don't see this as a huge issue to be concerned with, I.E Football coaches are now going to go crazy making their players pray, because they are still not allowed to do that. When we all know what red states are doing with Roe and what will follow with gay marriage etc.

I offered my opinion, reasoning and experience on the matter, and respect your opinion as well.

My issue is you're a coach and you are told you're making at least one of your players uncomfortable, you're asked to move it to a more private area, and you go on a media tour and then double down on it while now doing your prayers surrounded by media, parents, ect.

As someone that coached for about a decade, if I had been told something I was doing was making a player or players uncomfortable and there were favoritism concerns and I was offered a pretty reasonable accommodation I would feel like an asshole if I continued. And this guy didn't just continue, he went out to attract as much attention as he possibly could before continuing.

Because

religion first
Institution second
Kids third

The above is replaceable

But religion first

Then every thing second or lower including a willingness to lie cheat and steal on the things below the religion tranche


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it makes one player uncomfortable but thirty players feel better because of it (based on the photo)it’s up to the one player to adjust and take himself somewhere more private.

Unless of course it’s sanctioned by a public body ie. School

Unless of course schools are truly able to be religious schools for the majority and minority religions be dammed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Putting aside the constitutional merits of the case (which is what the court did), I think there are a few issues at play.

Were kids felt compelled to participate? A tough question to answer. Some kids said they were, the coach said it had no bearing. Regardless, it is someone with a position of authority over others. When our coach had "voluntary workouts" in the offseason, we knew they weren't "voluntary". It's a similar situation to a professor asking out a student or a boss asking out an employee. You aren't obligated to participate, but you have to trust that the person in power is not going to hold that over you.

The next is whether he used taxpayer dollars to preach. The answer to that is yes.

And I guess finally, the question is would this be allowed for other religions? Would a Muslim coach be allowed to hold group prayer at midfield and would he be allowed to use stories from the Quran during practice? Would a scientologist be allowed to read from Dianetics? I have a feeling I know how the courts would have sided on this, but it would have been interesting to see if it was a less followed religion in this scenario.