(06-24-2022, 02:49 PM)Dockerill91 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022, 02:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Legally concealed carry. That’s a good thing because it allows more law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Criminals, by nature and definition, are going to carry regardless of the law.
But I mean you say this, but contrary to popular belief, we have very little gun crime over here, so the argument of criminals are always going to carry isn’t necessarily accurate.
This is true but much more likely in a place where guns are prevalent. Besides, a criminal doesn’t need a gun to commit a violent crime.
(06-24-2022, 01:34 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]To the SCOTUS’s credit, they did strike down a New York gun law yesterday which possibly allows for easier abortion of criminals.
yeah. states are not responsible enough to figure out their own gun laws, but responsible enough to to figure out abortions.
makes no sense.
(06-24-2022, 03:44 PM)Norman Mushari Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022, 01:34 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]To the SCOTUS’s credit, they did strike down a New York gun law yesterday which possibly allows for easier abortion of criminals.
yeah. states are not responsible enough to figure out their own gun laws, but responsible enough to to figure out abortions.
makes no sense.
Your attempt at profundity fell short.
It was the correct ruling despite the liberal outcry.
I hear BBQ is on the menu tonight in Portland.
(06-24-2022, 12:48 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, just drives business from state to state. People will simply have to travel for the procedure. Really makes no sense.
Exactly. Which is why Congress will want to get involved.
One party or the other is going to nuke the filibuster law to get a federal law through, either loosening or tightening the rules.
Meanwhile neither will do much to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Not unexpected given the leak a few weeks ago. They also struck down Planned Parenthood vs Casey.
I agree with most of Alito's opinion. But then you have Thomas in the back saying "Next we need to allow states to ban sodomy and contraception again!" At least Thomas is being honest I guess. I suspect Alito feels the same way. Alito has written or signed on to opinions saying ,"don't worry that we said no to X, we would still say yes to Y" only to later sign on to opinions saying "actually we won't let you do Y either." He's a lowlife. But that one opinion is sound at least.
Roe v. Wade overturned: Liberal journalists rage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring
'Thanks especially to RBG today for making this possible' one writer tweeted about the Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade Friday resulted in meltdowns from many liberal journalists blaming former President Trump and the conservative justices.
However, some in the liberal media actually suggested the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was partly responsible.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/roe-v-wade...5MnHzgAvPk
(06-24-2022, 04:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022, 12:48 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, just drives business from state to state. People will simply have to travel for the procedure. Really makes no sense.
Exactly. Which is why Congress will want to get involved.
One party or the other is going to nuke the filibuster law to get a federal law through, either loosening or tightening the rules.
Meanwhile neither will do much to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
I think that was the entire point of this ruling. As the constitution is currently written Roe v Wade should have NEVER been allowed. From a legal stand point as I understand it this was the only conclusion SCOTUS could have made correcting a mistake made in 1974. Judge RBG confirmed this in statements prior to her passing. If the masses do not like this ruling then change the law, something Congress has refused to address because they lack the courage to commit and have kicked that can down the road for 50 years.
(06-24-2022, 06:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]I think that was the entire point of this ruling. As the constitution is currently written Roe v Wade should have NEVER been allowed. From a legal stand point as I understand it this was the only conclusion SCOTUS could have made correcting a mistake made in 1974. Judge RBG confirmed this in statements prior to her passing. If the masses do not like this ruling then change the law, something Congress has refused to address because they lack the courage to commit and have kicked that can down the road for 50 years.
I've seen a number of various polls but they all say relatively the same thing. A small % of Americans support abortion in all cases. And an even smaller % support a ban in all cases. Nearly 70% support some form of abortion but with limitations. And an even higher % support abortion in all cases where the life of the mother is at risk. In theory this should be one of the easiest political fights to find a middle ground. Just need to figure out the right number of weeks that someone can choose to have an elective abortion. Up to 15 weeks? 20? etc... But Congress has never been forced to have this discussion. For 50 years all you got was a bunch of political grandstanding because no politician was forced to back up their words under the cover of the roe v wade decision. If Congress was able to pass a federal law, I suppose the supreme court could strike it down. But my hunch is they'd be far less likely to strike down a law passed by Congress as opposed to roe v wade which was essentially a made up law from a prior court decision.
(06-24-2022, 07:31 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: 6-D2-C2-EDC-F9-B9-42-B8-A28-E-5795-CBB04-D5-B.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/grZjyJT/6-D2-C2-EDC-F9-B9-42-B8-A28-E-5795-CBB04-D5-B.jpg)
This is going to be rejected quickly but I guess from a company standpoint it is cheaper to pay for travel and a week off than to pay for medical and maternity leave.
A company can't ask for medical records, so anyone should be able to claim the time off, as many times as they want, etc. Generally all they can require is a doctors note saying they can or cannot work. I don't have to share medical info with them and they can't claim to know my sex and whether I'm a "birthing person".
Let's go ahead and sign me up for 1 week off every month.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
So that's what Mickey and Minnie are doing in the Magic Castle.
(06-24-2022, 02:55 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022, 02:49 PM)Dockerill91 Wrote: [ -> ]But I mean you say this, but contrary to popular belief, we have very little gun crime over here, so the argument of criminals are always going to carry isn’t necessarily accurate.
This is true but much more likely in a place where guns are prevalent. Besides, a criminal doesn’t need a gun to commit a violent crime.
Maybe, but (and this is pro rata’d so per capita) someone is more 30,400% more likely to die in the US due to gun crime than the UK, that’s a shockingly high figure. And no they don’t, but it certainly helps especially on a mass scale.
(06-24-2022, 08:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]So that's what Mickey and Minnie are doing in the Magic Castle.
And mice have them four to six at a time.
(06-24-2022, 07:31 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]
This is unnecessary. WDW is full of lesbians who are never going to need this, which is most likely why they offered it.