|
This is the song that pops into my head when this sorts of conversations pop up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLg5POTvVzs Just don't read the comments (or do if you need more evidence people are horrible).
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Modus ponens? More like SCOTUS moanin
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
I mean Trump isn't just a conservative whose views RBG disagrees with, he is running on promises of massively problematic poo poo constitutionally. We all know that those promises won't come true, but I think it is reasonable for a justice to have opinions about some of that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
From a lower court ruling but not sure where else to post this: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/judge-throws-out-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-insane-abortion-restrictions The Satanic Temple brings a suit against Missouri saying the 72-hour waiting period on abortion violates our religious beliefs. The judge then dismisses the case after a year of court process because she is no longer pregnant, so she has no standing. Is this as utterly absurd as it sounds on its face (and the legal scholar at the end of the article also asserts)? Good article from the quoted scholar: https://verdict.justia.com/2016/08/04/satanic-temple-jehovahs-witnesses-common-champions-government-inculcation-belief Chin Strap fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:it's retarded and the fact that it's retarded can be seen by simply realizing that roe v wade took years and years, and she actually gave birth before even the district level case got decided I like the argument in the second article that this isn't even about being pregnant or abortion, it is a RFRA case plain and simple. The pregnancy only ever mattered as it was what led to the forced violation of sincerely held religious beliefs in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:The standing issue is dumb, since it implies the only way to overturn a 72 hour waiting period is to hold an entire trial in 72 hours, but the notion that when life begins is a theological question is also dumb. You aren't allowed to kill two year olds, so we all agree there's some point when life begins. That isn't the question at hand. The question at hand is the 72 hour waiting period and literature reading requirement violated sincerely held religious beliefs looking through the lens of Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Booting it on standing should get overturned on precedent from roe v wade Man that seems like basic jurisprudence being slacked on then.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean from your article: quote:The Missouri Tenets and Missouri Lectionary are irrelevant to adherents to the Satanic Tenets in making a decision to get an abortion because they believe Human Tissue can be removed from their bodies on demand and, in good conscience, without regard to the current or future condition of the Human Tissue. Neither the Missouri Tenets nor the Missouri Lectionary is medically necessary for an adherent to the Satanic Tenets or any other woman to make an informed decision to get an abortion. Whenever the state claims life is, that is not the question at hand. It isn't vitally necessary for any woman to be told the states view on this in order to successfully carry out an abortion. There is no compelling reason for the state to burden TST's sincerely held religious belief with this. This is regardless of whether the state claims life begins at insenmination, 22 weeks, or birth, it doesn't matter as long as the state is still letting you get an abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:I guess, since you agree this is wholly irrelevant to the legal argument being made, you're agreeing the author said a dumb thing? Yeah that's a dumb sentence I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Platystemon is being dumb, but I've always been curious. What *is* the case history for defining the line between guns being allowable but missiles not? What is the criteria used?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Word is, that the incredible Opening Arguments Podcast is going to devote their Friday show to discussing Gorsuch's appointment. I just got into it for the travel ban episode and I am hooked and going back to the earlier ones now. Really great show. I first heard about the lawyer Andrew Torrez who hosts the show because he is also the lawyer for the God Awful Movies podcast, and was on as a guest for one their episodes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Learned about the Tam case from the episode of Opening Arguments that he was on: http://openargs.com/oa33-interview-slants/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:My criticism has nothing to do with the law. Yeah and NWA were huge douches too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh for gently caress's sake, Neil. Wouldn't this logic apply to the VRA too?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
~Nazis aren't a protected class~
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
A Muslim lgbtq Baker should be forced to bake a cake for that party if they'd make the exact same cake for another party.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Piell posted:Nah, the baker said he would sell them premade off the shelf cakes. Specifically birthday cakes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Christmas cookies" is not a content-neutral description. The whole point of a Christmas cookie is to indicate the beliefs of the people they're made for (Christians). Christmas isn't necessarily a Christian holiday in America. There are definitely ways of selling non-Christian Christmas cookies (snowflakes, pine trees, wrapped presents, basically anything not featuring baby Jesus). If the Muslim baker was willing to sell those to non-Christians but not Christians then yes that is discrimination. Marriage isn't necessarily a religious ceremony in America. Same idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 14:23
|
|