U.S. Supreme Court will take up abortion and gun cases in its new term while ethics concerns swirl

Protect the unborn...

Protect the second amendment...

GO TRUMP 2024 !!..

TokyoLivingToday 06:39 am JST

Protect the unborn...

Your heroes, Russia and China, took a different approach than protecting the unborn, as will your failed businessman.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said its decision was compelled by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling expanding gun rights and directing judges to evaluate restrictions based on history and tradition. Judges also have invalidated other long-standing gun control laws.

The wording:

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

In other words, if the exact law did not exist when the Second Amendment was written, it is unconstitutional. Funny, considering that the court's current interpretation of the Second Amendment has only existed since 2008, well after it was written. Public safety is no longer a concern when evaluating the constitutionality of a firearm law. So far, laws prohibiting people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, those under domestic violence restraining orders, felony defendants, and drug users from keeping and bearing arms, have been struck down.

Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers.

The man is utterly corrupt. The only court he should be in is as a defendant.

The man is utterly corrupt.

Not even close

The only court he should be in is as a defendant.

Maybe that’s where the new Justice should be, the one that couldn’t give a clear definition of what a woman is. Geez…

Lots more guns, no more abortions.

The Republican World

bass4funkToday 09:17 am JST

Maybe that’s where the new Justice should be, the one that couldn’t give a clear definition of what a woman is. Geez…

Because not giving a definition of a woman is a crime? Maybe in your new Gilead.

Because not giving a definition of a woman is a crime? 

Kinda is or at the very least a disqualification

Protect the unborn...

This would be a fine slogan if its proponents had any intention or action in protecting those who are already born.

But since they do not, its nothing but hollow and empty. In fact, its trolling. Because most of those who say it only say it because they want more suffering in the world.

Protect the second amendment...

I also want the 2A protected, but I think my reasons are different from the anti-abortionists. They want more suffering...through guns. I want regulations instilled to reduce suffering, but I want them enforced by the private sector and locally because the gov., esp. the Fed, cannot be trusted.

Why are Thomas and Roberts not under FBI investigation for committing crimes

Clarence was never qualified to sit on the bench by training or experience.

He never tried a case as a lawyer or as a judge. He was a court of appeals judge for a whopping year and change.

When Thoroughgood Marshall retired, Bush needed a black Republican and he wasn't "a" choice. He was the ONLY choice.

I'm surprised that the subject of his lack of credentials never came up. The American Bar Association was less than flattering:

The American Bar Association (ABA) appraised Thomas as "qualified" for the Supreme Court.[106][b] The Bush Administration anticipated that the organization would rate Thomas more poorly than it thought he deserved, so pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level qualified rating

Mind you, in an ocean of "highly qualified" legal minds, the Bush admin felt they needed to lobby for a mid-tier "qualified" rating.

Nothing Thomas did in his first30 years did anything to debunk that assessment.

Now he is unqualified due to an utter lack of ethics.

If he were a lower court judge, he would be impeached and disbarred for far less than his obvious corruption. But in what must be the dumbest rule ever, the ethics code that applies to every Federal judge, does NOT apply to the judges for which there is no other form of arbitration.

In bed with the Koch brothers and the originator of the unitary executive bunk. What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe that’s where the new Justice should be, the one that couldn’t give a clear definition of what a woman is. Geez…

What do you call individuals born intersex, namely a baby with normal appearing female gonads who is genetically XY male? Statistically an infant is more likely to be born intersex than born with red hair. All zygotes start out in the womb with female gonads. Around seven weeks into the pregnancy an XY embryo is subject to a burst of androgen in the womb at which time the female gonads convert into male gonads. This is true of all mammals.

If however the embryo has a genetic condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or AIS, they either do not respond at all to that burst of androgen, giving birth to what appears to be a girl but is genetically XY, or in some cases the embryo only partially responds, leaving the newborn with a mixture of male and female anatomy. The practice up till now has been to surgically assign such babies a sex by doing plastic surgery on them at about one week of age to make them a boy or a girl, depending on what is surgically more straightforward. However nobody ask the baby what they want to be when they grow up. That emerges later and the child may end up emotionally 180 degrees form the sex some surgeon assigned them years earlier.

This is real life. Like I said, an infant is more likely to be born intersex than be born with red hair. Life is not binary, not even one's sex. Nature is not so simple even if some of nature's products have simple minds.

Why are Thomas and Roberts not under FBI investigation for committing crimes

In recent years the US Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that have eviscerated public corruption laws. Their rulings have largely made their corruption legal.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-05-30/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-john-roberts-corruption

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/supreme-court-percoco-cuomo-corruption.html

What do you call individuals born intersex, namely a baby with normal appearing female gonads who is genetically XY male? Statistically an infant is more likely to be born intersex than born with red hair. 

Well, now you're just talking facts and logic.

Goobers don't do so good with facts and logic.

Abortion is the kryptonite that kills Repubs in 2024...

A broad majority of the public want a women to have freedom over her own body - up to the beginning of the third trimester....

Repub hard-line, Taliban-like laws that don't even permit an abortion in cases of rape and incest repel Americans - as seen on the string of abortion referendum defeats - even in Red States....

Even Trump knows this - notice how he has been backtracking on his abortion stand this past year...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-gets-hit-sides-testing-softer-abortion-message-order-win-rcna105802

Go ahead Roberts - further restrict reproductive freedom...you're just ensuring a Dem sweep in 2024...