short video of Justice Thomas comments

https://twitter.com/i/status/1525504986658086914

"We are dealing w a post WWII generation."

"I don't where it is going to lead you, but we know it is different"

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...upreme-court-forever

more Justice Thomas:

"I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad... I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,"

"When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,"

The high court’s secrecy has been an integral part of the judicial process, allowing justices to deliberate free of outside pressures, he added, noting the members of the court did not think such a leak could even occur.

"Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that," he said, theorizing how people thought of the Supreme Court’s exclusivity prior to the leak.

"Now that trust or that belief is gone forever,"

Thomas also suggested there has been a recent trend to undermine the Supreme Court, challenging its integrity and impartialness — and a new phenomenon of citizens showing up to members’ homes and holding them personally responsible.

The justice said, however, the trend was among liberals and that conservatives have not acted in this way.

"You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way. We didn’t throw temper tantrums. I think it is ... incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit-for-tat," Thomas said.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I don't understand how it came up for a vote. Doesn't the senate still have the Filibuster rule that would take 60 votes to overcome?

That was the vote to end debate on the proposed law. It didn't even get a majority of senators to end debate so the law essentially dies. This was not a filibuster since the bill never even got more than a majority of senators voting in favor of it.

But yes, it would've needed 60 votes to end debate. They only got 49. Hence, not a filibuster. The minority didn't overrule the majority, if that makes sense. So if the media or no-good democrats say it was struck down by the filibuster, they are lying are being misleading.

Thanks for the clarification. So it would have needed 60 votes to end debate. Then the media and the Democrats saying the bill died because of Joe Manchin's one vote is fake news, right? Because that's the news I was seeing.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I don't understand how it came up for a vote. Doesn't the senate still have the Filibuster rule that would take 60 votes to overcome?

That was the vote to end debate on the proposed law. It didn't even get a majority of senators to end debate so the law essentially dies. This was not a filibuster since the bill never even got more than a majority of senators voting in favor of it.

But yes, it would've needed 60 votes to end debate. They only got 49. Hence, not a filibuster. The minority didn't overrule the majority, if that makes sense. So if the media or no-good democrats say it was struck down by the filibuster, they are lying are being misleading.

Thanks for the clarification. So it would have needed 60 votes to end debate. Then the media and the Democrats saying the bill died because of Joe Manchin's one vote is fake news, right? Because that's the news I was seeing.

Speaking of FAKE NEWS, the AP reported that it was indeed a filibuster. AP was once respectable, but those days are gone. They've had days to correct this FAKE NEWS but so far it's been crickets.




Senate bid to save Roe v. Wade falls to GOP-led filibuster
By LISA MASCARO
May 11, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate fell far short Wednesday in a rushed effort toward enshrining Roe v. Wade abortion access as federal law, blocked by a Republican filibuster in a blunt display of the nation’s partisan divide over the landmark court decision and the limits of legislative action.

The almost party-line tally promises to be just the first of several efforts in Congress to preserve the nearly 50-year-old court ruling, which declares a constitutional right to abortion services but is at serious risk of being overturned this summer by a conservative Supreme Court.

President Joe Biden said that Republicans “have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives.”


.

https://apnews.com/article/abo...56aa95271711a8e915da

(Apologies if this was already posted in the previous pages)

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:


The almost party-line tally…

Gee, if the media approved I bet that would read the measure was struck down ”With bi-partisan cooperation”… ”

It’s all in the spin

Well, it's probably just a minor point, but I would think that only when a majority vote has been stopped by failing to achieve a super-majority (60 votes in the Senate) it is proper to say that the vote was 'filibustered". When the vote to end discussion and move to a final vote does not achieve a majority, the vote process has just "failed". Sen Manchin's "no" vote to end debate prevented there being a tie or majority, so it wasn't really a filibustered vote.

flashguy

The "minority rule" and "one man blocking the agenda" arguments are absurd. When 50 Republicans and 1 Democrat vote no, that is a MAJORITY. And last I checked, MAJORITY votes are the basis of "our democracy".

Yet the commie media tries to spin it into something other than 51 to 49 Majority wins. The commies think that are entitled to Joe Manchin's vote because he's a democrat. If they actually listened to him as a senator for his state and made compromises where he asked, they would have his vote.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

“If they actually listened to him as a senator for his state and made compromises where he asked, they would have his vote.”

Shhhhh… let the democRATs keep stepping on their own dicks.

How about this? Abortions are legal but must be free and no one can make money nor profit on any aspect of it. How fast would the industry dry up in spite of their heralded principles of choice?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
How about this? Abortions are legal but must be free and no one can make money nor profit on any aspect of it. How fast would the industry dry up in spite of their heralded principles of choice?

Not going to work. There are a lot of non-profits in this country that make a lot of money. non-profit is just a tax filing status. Planned Parenthood is already a non-profit.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
How about this? Abortions are legal but must be free and no one can make money nor profit on any aspect of it. How fast would the industry dry up in spite of their heralded principles of choice?

I'd rather see them require a hysterectomy once they have an abortion. I think that would make everyone involved in the abortion process think really hard about whether or not to continue the process. I know it's a pipe dream but I believe it would do more good than harm in the long run.

Wow.

This one actually took me by surprise; Starbucks must be feeling awful confident about who their targeted demographic is, because they seem to be going out of their way to insert themselves into political issues lately.

Starbucks will cover travel for workers seeking abortions

Starbucks said Monday it will pay the travel expenses for U.S. employees to access abortion and gender-confirmation procedures if those services aren't available within 100 miles of a worker's home.

The Seattle coffee giant said it will also make the travel benefit available to the dependents of employees who are enrolled in Starbucks' health care plan. Starbucks has 240,000 U.S. employees; it was not immediately clear what percentage of them are enrolled in the company's health care plan.

Starbucks is going to woke themselves right into bankruptcy. Between unionizing and this, they're fooked.

Saw another 'protest' on the news today. One pro-abortion idiot had a sign reading "Never Again" on one side of her 'my body my choice' sign.

It doesn't get much stupider than that - invoking The Holocaust in an effort to show one's support for mass murder.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Starbucks is going to woke themselves right into bankruptcy.

Maybe.

I wouldn't under-/over-estimate their typical clientele. Their products, from coffee to pastries, to whatever, really aren't all that great, they charge an arm and a leg for 'em, yet people line up to buy the stuff, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Starbucks is going to woke themselves right into bankruptcy.

The sooner the better. Thank god I don't drink coffee and am too 'unenlightened' to avail myself of their other products.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Wow.

This one actually took me by surprise; Starbucks must be feeling awful confident about who their targeted demographic is, because they seem to be going out of their way to insert themselves into political issues lately.

Starbucks will cover travel for workers seeking abortions

Starbucks said Monday it will pay the travel expenses for U.S. employees to access abortion and gender-confirmation procedures if those services aren't available within 100 miles of a worker's home.

The Seattle coffee giant said it will also make the travel benefit available to the dependents of employees who are enrolled in Starbucks' health care plan. Starbucks has 240,000 U.S. employees; it was not immediately clear what percentage of them are enrolled in the company's health care plan.

They are hardly the only corporation doing this. Tesla has also said that they will provide this benefit to their employees. Yes Elon Musk's Tesla.

And really, it makes perfect sense for corporations and Ayn Rand type capitalists to think this is a good business strategy. What's better in the long run for corporations? A woman leaving the workforce on maternity leave to care for her newborn? Or maybe the woman worker leaves the workforce permanently to raise a family. Then there are medical costs associated with a pregnancy and birth. Those costs even carry over for the father who works for the company who has a wife who is pregnant and who are starting a family. Insurance costs for the company go up.

Or the company can pay for a simple abortion and be done with it. It makes perfect economic sense for Starbucks, Tesla, and others to offer this benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Or maybe the woman worker leaves the workforce permanently to raise a family.

I agree with your points, but this (^^^^) rarely happens nowadays. Long gone are the days of the housewife/homemaker/"stay-at-home mom", and that's a shame as our society and our country was much better off when it was the norm.

I agree it's no longer the norm, but I think there are more women who would prefer to be home taking care of their children and family than some realize.

The left certainly prefers that the mother stay in the office rather than at home. The French feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir said, “No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

The left want more women in the workforce to destroy the family. The corporations simply want more workers.

Figured I'd just put this in this thread:

Re: Starbucks

Cheaper to pay for an abortion than maternal healthcare and a absentee employee.