News Jun 24, 2022 at 11:17 am

Local Electeds Pledge Money for Abortion Funds, Promise New Protections

Protests at Westlake, the Federal Building, and Yesler Terrace Park start at 5 pm Hannah Krieg

Comments

1

I’m living on the Missouri side of Kansas City, not that there’s much of a difference between KS and MO (or the surrounding states).

3

you're not Alone!
a third of the Country'd
rather see good Lib die than have
a Habitable Planet for their Progeny.

go Figure!

4

“If you are unmoved by the promises of our electeds, head over to the Federal Building this evening at 5 pm.”

Yes, the Left just loves to protest/rally/occupy - especially when the weather is nice - and follow up with…. nothing.

Nothing that is said or done outside the Federal Building this evening (or ever) will make one bit of difference.

Want to do something that matters?

Get you ass out of Seattle for a few hours to volunteer for a candidate running in a swing Legislative or Congressional district. And do it in October when ballots are arriving in mailboxes.

Yes, the weather will be shit and it doesn’t look cool on the social-media-app-du-jour… but it makes a hell of a lot more difference than anything Hannah will ever recommend.

5

Thank you for sharing your feelings, Eldenring dear. "Conservatives" are emotionally needy and we need to treat you people with therapeutic courtesy. It helps with your fragility issues.

But tell me: Do you have any facts to back up your feelings? I'm not trying to invalidate you, I'm just trying to understand the place your pain is coming from.

6

2, you couldn't care less because....no daughters? The Second Amendment was written long before the kind of guns we have now became available. Why shouldn't it be updated?

7

@2, I think you meant the 9th amendment. The 10th amendment is about states' rights, but the 9th amendment is about "rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Which may cover the right to seek abortion- Alito did not even comment on this, which seems to me to be an obvious oversight.
Of course maybe you just "just hate leftoids and love to watch them seethe." In which case I don't really see why anyone should listen to you. You could be replaced with a rock with a post-it that says "WHATEVER THE LEFT SAYS IS BAD" and save us all on efficiency costs. It's a simple NPC program, not one that I'd care to replicate or emulate as an example of rational thought.

8

@2. Big talk from a craven maidenless bluntstone.

9

Wait, Thomas thinks people shouldn't have a constitutional right to marry who they want? Isn't he married to a white woman? There were times and places where to say that would be frowned upon would be an understatement.
"Pastoral scene of the gallant South"

10

"In true Democrat fashion, she asked the people losing their rights to vote a little harder"

If a couple thousand more people had voted "a little harder" in 2016, Roe would still be the law of the land.

13

Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster is the reason we are here that an Obama nominating Merrick Garland who is absolute garbage oh and Democrats with Super-Majorities never bothering to codifying Roe.

14

@2:

Fuck you. No, wait. Here's hoping you NEVER, EVER get to fuck anything besides a dirty gym sock for the rest of your vile, pathetic, insignificant life.

15

@12. Congrats, but in real life you are no more than a loathesome dung eater.

16

"You went out of your way to deny gun rights to thousands here in WA..."

Which well-regulated militia(s) here in WA were denied weapons? Please name those organizations.

20

Eldenring dear, are you replying to yourself?

I’m sorry you were frightened by Seattle. It feels bad when your feelings are hurt, doesn’t it?

22

@21:

No one here believes for a New York, let alone a Chicago, second that you've ever found a female who would allow you to insert your micro-peen into them, probably not even if you offered them a million golden runes.

23

When people resort to haughty sex talk like the cartoon above, they're either insecure or full of shame. Which one do you think it is?

26

@25. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

27

It's OK, Eldenring. We understand.

Just remember: Even the most damaged people can sometimes find some sort of solace. Hang in there.

28

@24:

You don't deserve or warrant anything better.

29

@11 More like maybe 99% of the blame goes to Moscow Mitch, I'll give you 1% to RBG, though I think that might be a bit high, did you want her to retire in like, 2014? Maybe reasonable, but that was some time ago and she couldn't know then what we know about Mitch now.

30

@18: I didn't forget anything (and it's not a "statement," it's a Constitutional Amendment). The only "right to bear arms" which is a "codified federal constitutional right" (your term, @2) belongs to a "well-regulated militia," not to any individual or self-proclaimed group. As we know from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, "The President shall be Commander in Chief ... of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" so any "militia," whether "well-regulated" or not, would, by definition, answer to the President in time of war.

Now, again: which well-regulated militia(s) -- which, remember would take orders from, say, a President Barack Hussein Obama -- were denied weapons in Washington state? Name(s), please.

31

@29 You could say it goes back to Bork. Granted the Republicans should have never nominated someone from the Saturday Night Massacre and expect the Democrats to swallow that. After that though, every Republican nominee was grilled and voted on party line and every Democratic nominee got bipartisan votes. That until Harry Reid deep sixed G W’s Hispanic candidate because the Dems could have any chance of the Reps cutting into the Latin vote. Then it became party line for all nominees. Then Harry decided to nuke the filibuster for the lower courts which allowed Cocaine Mitch to nuke it on Supreme Court nominees. The Turning point blocking Miguel Estrada that and the original stop the steal of Bush v Gore.

32

possibly Dems' last Best Hope
is for Far 'right' Extremists to
do what 'repubs' Always do:

Over-Reach:

once they get going there's seldom
enough Sane peeps to slow them down:

Adios Abortion
Adios Medicare
Adios Gay Marriage
and Adios Gays Etc.
Adios Contraception
Adios Social Security
Adios Workers' "rights"
Adios Interracial marriage
and Adios Voting -- unless you
happen to meet a few 'basic' requirements

and maybe just maybe it'll be Enough to wake up the Electorate so that we can Vote a few of them out at Midterms -- but as they're Experts at shit like stacking Courts, Judges and voting Districts -- in Their Favor -- plus Secretaries of State unencumbered by any Love for 'Democracy,' the Odds are rather fawking L o n g.

not to Mention:
they fucking OWN the
Means of Communication

'a 'Republic' if you
can fucking Keep it'?*

good Luck
America

you're gonna fucking Need it.

*so said the guy on this Nation's
Key to its Existence: the
Hundred Dollar Bill

33

so for now looks like we gotta
Rely on Kavanaghtius Maximus
& Pray he stays Sober for a Decade:

nyt:
Abortion Ruling
Poses New Questions About
How Far Supreme Court Will Go

For his part, Justice Kavanaugh echoed and emphasized Justice Alito’s claim that the court’s decision to overrule precedents about abortion does not amount to overruling precedents about contraception and interracial or same-sex marriage, “and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

The dissenting justices expressed disbelief at Justices Alito’s and Kavanaugh’s attempts to distinguish abortion from precedents about matters like contraception and same-sex intimacy and marriage.

The bottom line, they wrote, was that the reasoning about the 14th Amendment and 1868 was the same for that entire constellation of rulings.

“One of two things must be true,” they wrote. “Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure.

Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

--Opinion by Charlie Savage
June 24, 2022, 8:04 p.m.

tonnes more at
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/supreme-court-abortion-contraception-same-sex-marriage.html


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.