Nick Anderson for June 25, 2022

  1. Tf 117
    RAGs  3 months ago

    Maybe the Q-publicans are heavily invested in coat hangers.

     •  Reply
  2. 20150712 095628
    LookingGlass Premium Member 3 months ago

    We can now look “forward” to overturning the rulings on contraception, gay relationships, SSM, Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education and many more!! Might as well get rid of the 15th and the 19th Amendments – as well!!!

    The U.S. of A – rushing “forward” into the DARK AGES!!!*

    /SHEESH/

     •  Reply
  3. Img 0668b
    Coopersdad  3 months ago

    I wonder if Clarence Thomas will want to review interracial marriage.

     •  Reply
  4. Img 1754  2
    GiantShetlandPony  3 months ago

    One thing for certain in the states that have enacted the most ridiculous abortion laws. Especially, those that would keep a woman from receiving an abortion of a dead fetus to save her life. The certain thing is those people that are celebrating this as a win, they too will lose someone they love, because they were denied the life saving abortion to remove the dead fetus to save her life. It is inevitable.

     •  Reply
  5. Wtp
    superposition  3 months ago

    Tell me again why the majority of Americans are not outraged by — and ready to vote out of office — the extremist minority seizing effective control of all branches of government and imposing a singular theocratic philosophy that willfully overrides America’s tenet of religious tolerance.

     •  Reply
  6. P1000380
    A# 466  3 months ago

    A frayed thread.

     •  Reply
  7. Yin yang
    Havel  3 months ago

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that the “originalism” that is the USSC majority is a bit fuzzy. It ignores the 9th Amendment:

    The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.(Wiki)

     •  Reply
  8. Bleach 170
    KenseidenXL Premium Member 3 months ago

    What thread? They have no legitimacy. NONE AT ALL.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    hardwickd  3 months ago

    The Supreme Court is now officially the puppet of the GQP. There is no more America.

     •  Reply
  10. Curious cat
    Curiosity Premium Member 3 months ago

    Legitimacy gone. Too many incompetent zealot ‘justices’ picked by a wanna-be Theocrat (Pence) and approved in spite of a combination of incompetence and lying under oath. All set up by McConnell.

     •  Reply
  11. Cat icon 2 041722 rendering 1  gigapiz x6 edited
    Stephen Runnels Premium Member 3 months ago

    Until Democrats expand the court to 13 Justices, there will be no legitimacy.

     •  Reply
  12. Lord flasheart
    Same2Ubuddy Premium Member 3 months ago

    It’s Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg’s fault.

     •  Reply
  13. Pat new 150
    Patjade Premium Member 3 months ago

    Nah, they already cut that thread.

     •  Reply
  14. Coexist
    Bookworm  3 months ago

    If Lincoln’s government “Of the People, By the People, and For the People” was the "Great Experiment, the last two decisions of the SCOTUS have deemed the experiment a failure.

     •  Reply
  15. B3710640 48e0 4fbd ac6f 162c3ba7fae0
    Zebrastripes  3 months ago

    The deaths of women will be over "THEIR HEADS”! They couldn’t care less about who dies…what’s important to them is one thing and one thing only….the almighty dollar

    When lobbying becomes a felony, then just maybe some things will turn around…

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    veteran43  3 months ago

    The constitution doe not mention abortion. Get over it and call your state reps.

     •  Reply
  17. Screen shot 2020 12 01 at 8.14.28 am
    librarylady59  3 months ago

    The blood of every woman dies giving birth, every woman who dies from a botched termination & every newborn who dies is on the hands of Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Of course, they “know” they are right despite: There is one point, though, in this debate that is clear: The majority of Americans don’t want to overturn Roe. How polls ask about support varies, but the vast majority of respondents — somewhere between 85 and 90 percent, according to most polls — think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. – https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    lineaster  3 months ago

    since they want to go back a couple of hundred years shouldn’t Thomas divorce his wife. if no abortion, no birth control, no LGBTQ rights then certainly no bi-racial marriage. support Scotus support Taliban

     •  Reply
  19. Michaelparksjimbronson
    well-i-never  3 months ago

    Next, Clarence Thomas and Ginny’s marriage.

     •  Reply
  20. Frank
    Frankfreak  3 months ago

    If you have trouble reading anything longer than a sound bite, skip this rant. It’s long. If you respond with “tldr,” I will block you and forget you existed. (That includes you too, Mom.) I’m pissed off and I’m not going to stop being pissed off. Not for a long time.Now … let me talk about the fucktastrophe that has hijacked our Supreme Court and turned it into a flustercluck.Yeah. Some of these chuckleheads are operating under the false assumption that “originalist” is a valid basis for legal judgments. They’re beyond wrong. They are not even approaching wrong from the far side. See, the whole principle of the “originalist” philosophy is that the Constitution is engraved in stone and if it’s not in the Constitution, there’s no legal basis for it. By that reasoning, there’s no legal basis for medicare, social security, or even an intercontinental railroad. But these walking elbow wrinkles, these sufferers of impacted cerebral fecaliths, these failures of recombinant DNA, have subscribed to a theory that is already disproven by the very document they have sworn to uphold. Point, the first. The ninth and tenth amendments. “All rights not listed in this document still belong to the people. All rights not listed in this document still belong to the states.” Got that? So even if the “right to privacy” is not listed in the fucking Constitution, it’s still a fucking right and it still belongs to the fucking people — and the fucking Supreme Court has betrayed their fucking oaths when they decided that bloated middle-aged white men can decide whether or not a woman has control over her own body. Point, the second. The whole “originalist” philosophy is a dead herring dragged across any responsible legal argument. The founding fathers weren’t stupid. Honest. Okay, they wore high heels, makeup, and wigs — but they weren’t drag queens. They were just, I dunno, stylish. But they weren’t stupid.

     •  Reply
  21. Frank
    Frankfreak  3 months ago

    They argued, they negotiated, they considered what kind of government they wanted to create. (Sidebar: Watch the mini-series John Adams. If you don’t have time for that, watch the movie 1776. If you don’t have time for that, fuck you.)They knew — they fucking knew that whatever government they created, it would have to be flexible, it would have to adapt to the changing times. So they built into the Constitution, multiple mechanisms for the process of political evolution. They understood that the Constitution had to be a living document that future generations could adjust to fit their circumstances. The founding fathers didn’t know from railroads, telegraphs, automobiles, airplanes, computers — but they created legal mechanisms for the government to invent appropriate regulations. So the Constitution was designed to adapt to the needs of a growing nation. It was not designed to be frozen. So the whole fucking “originalist” philosophy is a masquerade for rolling back six generations of progress. It’s not just abortion — oh, let’s look at that history. The Republican party needed red-meat issues to get their base to the polls. They discovered that anti-LGBTQ+ issues and abortion and veiled racism would energize the redneck states. So they campaigned heavily on those issues, instilling fear and hatred into their base, keeping that cauldron simmering until finally it boiled over and gave us Donald Drumpf. And now they’re celebrating their victory. They pwned the libtards.

     •  Reply
  22. Frank
    Frankfreak  3 months ago

    Yeah, well — let’s look at some more history. A hundred years ago, the Republican party pretty much owned the government. Corporations looted the national economy. The stock market was a place for gambling with other people’s wealth. And one day, that bubble imploded. Because the Republicans of that time weren’t interested in the well-being of the nation, didn’t care about the well-being of the people, only cared about paper profits. So, ka-boom. They put the nation and the rest of the world into a recession so deep, it was one of the primary causes of WWII.In 1932, the voters threw the Republicans out. And despite continuing Republican opposition in Congress, FDR was able to put programs in place to restore the nation’s health. The WPA and the CCC and Social Security and more. For twenty years, the various factions within the Democratic party were able to find enough common cause that this nation became the beacon of hope for the entire world. The first Republican president in twenty years — Eisenhower — recognized the value of those programs and used his administration to strengthen them. Even Tricky Dick, the asshole, recognized the value of those programs and worked to make them stronger. But Tricky Dick got caught with his hands in the cookie jar and his exit, stage left, pursued by a bear, left a power vacuum in the Republican party — one that was quickly filled with white supremacists, religious fanatics, and big money operators, whose singular goal was to dismantle the advances of the past. (Don’t take my word for it, do some spelunking, and see how they wanted to repeal Social Security, how they fought medicare, how they … oh, never mind. If you don’t know by now, you’re not paying attention.)With Ronald Reagan, the Republican patry began ripping out great handfuls of the government wiring that had worked so well for so many years. The Reagan administration was singularly responsible for allowing Fox News to get its nose into the national tent.

     •  Reply
  23. Chili wreath
    Diamond Lil  3 months ago

    There’s nothing left for them to hang on to. They gave a disturbed person with a male organ more rights than a woman who has been raped. There is no amount of shame huge enough or disgust large enough for those shills

     •  Reply
  24. Avat
    Radish the old word monger Premium Member 3 months ago

    Now that Chief Justice John Roberts voted to allow unfettered restrictions on gun ownership, perhaps its time to tell the world about his adoption of two children from Wales in an arrangement brokered by…(wait for it) Jeffery Epstein!

     •  Reply
  25. Me cap
    darkendale  3 months ago

    Well, here are two points for the anti-abortion people.

    Point One: If a person cannot live off life support, they are not ALIVE. A baby in the womb is dependent on the mother’s life support. If that child cannot survive without that support, it isn’t alive. That’s science.

    Point two: Genesis 2:7 Adam was formed out of the dust but wasn’t a living soul until he BREATHED. That’s your religious reference.

    Life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own. When it can breathe outside a woman’s womb.

     •  Reply
  26. Dscn0307
    FrannieL Premium Member 3 months ago

    I’m genuinely fascinated by a mindset that crusades for legal protection for unborn children from conception to birth, while simultaneously managing to uphold gun laws linked directly to the murders of young children in schools.

     •  Reply
  27. Win 20140630 113139  2
    Duane Ott  3 months ago

    I have only skimmed the court’s(no longer deserves capitalization) decision, and they seem to completely ignore the ninth amendment. Individual Rights not enumerated in the first eight amendments are covered by the ninth. After that, state governments get to legislate, but only within the framework of the US Constitution. Several sitting judges lied under oath to the US Congress. Doesn’t that qualify as impeachable?

     •  Reply
  28. Pilgrim
    Newenglandah  3 months ago

    There may well be a few devoutly religious people who honestly believe that a fetus is a person. However, when I see footage of anti-choice demonstrations there is usually footage of people waving Trump signs and racist caricatures of former President Obama. Many if not most of the demonstrators are wearing MAGA hats. Often there are pro-gun slogans mixed in with the anti-choice slogans. Sometimes there is some clown wearing an “Uncle Sam” outfit, as if that has anything to do with being “pro-life”.

    The bottom line is that these protesters are not concerned about “life” or anyone’s rights. They are simply demonstrating their hatred of “libs” and will now celebrate their success in “sticking it to the left”, whatever that means.

     •  Reply
  29. Avat
    Radish the old word monger Premium Member 3 months ago

    ‘I can’t imagine a better turnout engine’: CNN conservative warns GOP about Roe ruling blowback

    “Yeah, I think the Roe ruling was a huge — they [Republicans] might like the outcome, but politically I can’t imagine a better turnout engine than this ruling for democrats,” Cupp claimed. “And you can make the argument that the Republicans’ legislative victories and the Supreme Court victory by a conservative court are regressive, they’re taking us backwards. Whether you like them or not, you can’t deny the fact that they’re going backwards, right? They’re taking us back to a different time when these weren’t rights.”

    “Republicans are banning books,” she continued. “I mean, it really does feel anachronistic where the country is, so I think that’s a good message for Democrats.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2657562492/

     •  Reply
  30. Avat
    Radish the old word monger Premium Member 3 months ago

    John Roberts is ‘powerless’ and ‘clearly can’t control’ his court: legal experts

    https://www.rawstory.com/john-roberts-2657562209/

    4 of the right wing Justices are guilty of perjury.

     •  Reply
  31. Avat
    Radish the old word monger Premium Member 3 months ago

    ‘This is a losing issue’: GOP campaign consultants panicked about upcoming midterms after Roe decision

    https://www.rawstory.com/gop-abortion/

     •  Reply
  32. Avat
    Radish the old word monger Premium Member 3 months ago

    Maddow warns of the legal trick GOP may use to ban abortion nationwide

    “We have to get real about who did this and how they did it, because this is part of a political project,” she said. “This is a 40-years in the making project. For a big, well staffed, well funded, very radical project of the American political right and the Republican Party. And I say it’s very radical, on purpose. I mean that both in terms of its aims, we’re seeing that today. But also in terms of its tactics.”

    “It’s impolite to say this, I know, but the anti-abortion wing of the conservative movement and Republican Party has long had an armed wing, a terrorist wing, that has killed a lot of Americans in the past few decades and set off a lot of bombs, for terroristic purposes,” she said.

    “That said, if we are being real about this, that question might be moot by the time we have a Republican president, because there is nothing in the reasoning of today’s opinion from the six justices that would stop them from accepting something like a fetal personhood case,” she said. “Fetal personhood, a concept that the right has been building in this political movement, that they’ve built around the abortion issue — a fetal personhood case, into this court, would give the court a path to not just let individual states ban abortion, which is what they did today. If they took a fetal personhood case, that could be their vehicle to impose a nationwide ban on abortion, on the order of the United States Supreme Court.”

    “And yes, that would be a radical thing for the supreme court to do, but would it be that much more radical than what they have done today? I mean, they’ve kind of broken the seal here, haven’t they? Roe was a 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, by itself, multiple times,” she noted. “That did not matter to them at all today.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/rachel-maddow-abortion-fetal-personhood/

     •  Reply
  33. Thumbnail liv look
    Duka  3 months ago

    “Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times…I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and the Team of Nine.”— then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh, reassuring Sen. Susan Collins that she could trust him not to overturn Roe v. Wade if she voted for his confirmation

    “If you’re feeling grateful this week sign the card thanking 45 for appointing conservative pro-life Justices to SCOTUS!!!”— Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter

     •  Reply
  34. Missing large
    klingon131  3 months ago

    Not so ‘supreme’ anymore. Garbage.

     •  Reply
  35. Mel and linda 013
    Melki Premium Member 3 months ago

    Face it – Clarence Thomas should have been kicked off the court for refusing to recuse himself from the Bush v. Gore decision, even though his wife was working for the conservative think tank – the Heritage Foundation, where she collected résumés for potential presidential appointments in the George W. Bush administration. Um . . . I’m pretty sure that’s a conflict of interest.

     •  Reply
  36. 7d66d3ba e62b 45b1 9ce1 5e2a8de3e0c3
    Super Fly  3 months ago

    Everybody’s getting a gun, so the rate of post-birth abortions will shoot up.

     •  Reply
  37. Smokey
    Zuhlamon Premium Member 3 months ago

    Approval rating of SCOTUS is at an all-time low (24%), and sinking.fast.

    Largely overlooked, the fascist SCOTUS says police can’t be sued or held responsible if they (oops) don’t bother to read arrestees their Miranda rights. The original source for that law dates back to 1871, with a law meant to deter the KKK during Reconstruction.

    Meanwhile, FOX legal “analyst” Jonathan Turley came up with a typically shallow and disingenuous response to SCOTUS kicking women in the gut, basically telling his viewers that it was no biggie at all. Like other right-wing pundits, he downplayed the opinion’s significance, arguing that the court “simply sent the matter back to the states” in a narrow ruling and there is “no risk of other rulings” following suit (though Justice Clarence Thomas himself explicitly stated, and enumerated, otherwise).

    Pure horse pucky. States are not “limiting abortion rights,” as Turdley deceitfully suggested, but banning and criminalizing abortions outright. 13 states will ban abortion immediately or within a month and 13 more are poised to follow suit, for a total of 26 “slave” states. That’s one helluva lot of women who will experience a drastic change, one that will imperil their health and well-being, and liberty itself (10-year prison sentences mandated). And that’s one helluva lot of pissed-off and motivated women, too.

    But, hey, why think about that when you’ve got a lucrative FOX contract to prostitute yourself for, eh wot? Beside, why should he care about women? He’s on the Misogynist Network, y’know.

     •  Reply
  38. Smokey
    Zuhlamon Premium Member 3 months ago

    The celebrators of the current “victory” over human rights smugly think it’s some kind of “point” that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Neither are weapons of mass destruction, flame throwers, and 21st century weapons of war, either. So what “inalienable rights” do think we need to explicitly codify?

    I (and the free world) define such rights as “a right that can’t be restrained or repealed by human laws.”

    The right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Ok. That’s pretty vague. Let’s see, what else? The right of travel? Travel to another state? Free speech? Owning guns? Carrying guns in public? What limits to privacy? Loving and marrying the human you choose? Does it have to be a person of the same race and opposite sex? Are oral and anal sex permitted, or only among opposite sexes of the same race? Freedom from slavery and torture? The right of religion, work, and education? Marrying a person of a different race? Buying products from another state? Legal separation of races? Separate but equal? Repeal of federal laws on hate crimes and civil rights (after all, “lynching” is not explicitly named in the Constitution)?

    Or how much or which of those ideals devolve around the periodic, fickle and arbitrary opinions of the residents of any one individual state, summed up as “It Depends” …?

    There has been laws for apartheid, segregation, and against sodomy and miscegenation. Will those laws now be dusted off and applied by “States Rights”?

     •  Reply
  39. Missing large
    theoldidahofox  3 months ago

    Trump’s appointees all lied to get the court. The court is not legitimate, but corrupt.

     •  Reply
  40. Frank
    Frankfreak  3 months ago

    We are dealing with malignant abortions.

     •  Reply
  41. 1787776c 5399 4da3 91dd efc533a364c7
    Archistoteles  3 months ago

    It’s official now. The USA has become as creepy fundamentalist as Afghanistan. How political and religious can the judiciary become? Well, here’s your answer. America has now officially taken leave of the separation of powers and become a third world country.

     •  Reply
  42. Missing large
    lineaster  3 months ago

    it’s gone

     •  Reply
  43. Dp
    All the dinosaurs feared the T-Rex  3 months ago

    I have seen many memes and toons asking when other countries will impose sanctions on the US or send in military help since we have been taken over by religious extremists. This is coming from overseas. The fact that the right cant see that they are exactly why the US has gone to war in other countries for is mind-blowing.

     •  Reply
  44. Missing large
    bob1776  3 months ago

    First it was toilet paper. Then it was baby formula.Now it’s tampons.Next it’ll be coat hangers.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Nick Anderson